Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring

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

---

User:Johnpacklambert has nominated dozens of categories for deletion and merge. Before the nominations are closed, has started emptying some of them without any notice. When challenged, he refused to honour WP:BRD.

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#1431 establishments in Ukraine: he removed Derazhnia[1] and Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine[2] from the category, reverted my revert,[3], and then at talk:Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine#Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine, simply refused to respect the normal (academic, political, and Wikipedia) practice of treating earliest mention as the date of foundation.
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#Establishments in Ukraine when most of Ukraine was under the Russian Empire (33 categories): removed articles
  • Lviv National Agrarian University[4]
  • Trinity Monastery of St. Jonas[5]
  • Odessa University[6]
  • Grekov Odessa Art School[7]
  • Odessa Military Academy[8]
  • Beskydy Tunnel[9]
  • Perechyn Timber-and-Chemical combine[10]
  • Port of Skadovsk[11]
  • Odessa Art Museum[12]

There is no reason to remove these articles from the nominated categories during the merge discussion. If the proposal is accepted, then they would be removed as a matter of course. But if it is rejected, then these categories have been wrongfully removed. In my opinion he is doing so to stack the merge proposal by making it look like these categories are empty and unneeded. Perhaps he is also so sure that his rationale about the definition of “establishment” is the only possible correct view that he doesn’t need to wait for consensus to proceed.

In several of his nominations I have provided alternative valid rationales for inclusion of places in “establishment by country” categories, and on his talk page (User talk:Johnpacklambert#Historical categories by period) suggested that a central discussion is needed to establish a guideline for these scores or hundreds of changes, but he has refused to accept my arguments, and refused to start a broader discussion on the category framework.

As remedy, I suggest he revert all of his category changes under all of his nominations, including ones I may not have found, and make a note of this in each relevant discussion. The category discussions should remain open for a reasonable period afterwards. Perhaps discussion participants should be notified. —Michael Z. 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The relevant categories fall under discretionary sanctions per WP:AC/DS (Eastern Europe), and the user has been alerted.[13] —Michael Z. 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I was reading the discussion as it developed. From what I could tell Mzajsc and few othwr people repeatedly copy and pasted the same (or extremely similar) bad faithed acusations that the whole thing was (is) due to imperalism/colonialism, instead of engaging the counter points other people (not just JPL) were making. So I highly doubt any resonable admin would close the duscussions in Mzajac's direction.

Also, at one point JPL said someone (not him) had emptied out one of the catogries. So there should really be more of an investigation into who actually did what before the finger pointing/reverting takes place. Especially if he was just "following the crowd." Not that I think something being removed from a category matters that much during a discussion though. Who ever did it. Just like AfDs don't suddenly become invalid or are people normally chastized (let alone reported to ANI) if someone edits an article during one. Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: without comment on the detail of this case, I'd note that this seems more akin to someone blanking an article undergoing AfD, that would probably be viewed as rather more problematic. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the case, going by what Liz said it sounds like there is precedent to remove links from categories that are going through a CfD. There's zero precedent to blank pages that are going through AfD. That doesn't mean I personally agree that the links should be removed, but I don't think it's worth sanctioning JPL over since it's already going on either. There should really be a broader discussion about it at WT:CFD instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to ask JPL to undo his revert-revert? Or am I just wasting everyone’s time at ANI when I could just push him to 3RR? Asking sincerely, since I tried to follow the advice at WP:WAR by coming here. —Michael Z. 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: That is false. Please back up your accusation with evidence, if you expect anyone to take it as in good faith. —Michael Z. 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's a massive hassle to provide diffs when phone editing. Especially when they would be in the double digits. That said, the first thing I saw when I opened the link at the top of this complaint was Place Clichy saying "Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism...Etc..Etc.." Which they copied and pasted like 9 times, without ever responding to anything JPL was saying. You also opposed the whole thing because "It is eliminating national and social history in favour of colonialism." Plus "it represents an extremely dated colonial WP:POV and WP:BIAS against the national histories of nations." So claims of imperialism, nationalism, and colonialism were being tossed around a lot and at the expensive of actually engaging in the discussion. Especially with Place Clichy. That was just from a quick glance to. I'm sure there's more, but that's all I feel like contributing. BTW, I wasn't saying that it's a problem that or Place Clichy brought those things up, just that doing so was/is extremely unlikely to result in the categories being kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not make bad-faith accusations. So someone else copy-pasted their own comment? I did not do that either (although it doesn’t seem unreasonable when several independent CFDs come off a production line making the same argument). Yes, there are historical (historiographical) views that are represented in current reliable sources, and others that come from the nineteenth century and Wikipedia should absolutely not uphold. —Michael Z. 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I copied and pasted your comments. They are bad faithed IMO because a CfD isn't the place to litigate wider historical (historiographical) views. Just like an AfD related to an ethnic minority isn't the place to discuss race relations in America. It's never productive. Also, since JPL was the one that initiated them, by claiming they have anything to do with imperalism/colonialism your associating him with those things. Even if you didn't directly say he was being imperialist. I'm not saying you know that or were intentionally trying to to derail the CfD discussion, just that it wasn't fair to JPL or other people to make the discussion about that. Especially at the cost of discussing the CfDs more directly. That's just my opinion though. It's more feedback on how to be more effective next time then anything else. Which your free to take or leave. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s my point that CFD is the wrong place. But JPL brought it to CFD when he decided to restructure dozens of categories to conform to his view, a change from the existing consensus that had interpreted categories “by country” broadly and variously. JPL declined to start the necessary conversation beforehand, and refused to consider it when I and others pointed out its necessity. He further committed to it by editing affected articles before his CFDs were concluded, and in fact after it was becoming clear that his view is not the consensus (you can read him complaining about opposition on his talk page). The result is likely to be a large random selection of categories changed out of thousands, and the issue no closer to a consensus or even a discussion. —Michael Z. 13:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your really not making any sense. If CfD was the wrong place to discuss colonialism/imperialism then why did you discuss them there? Also, your saying he should have started the necessary conversations when he literally took the categories to "Categories for Discussion." That's what it's there for. To discuss categories. Finally, how did JPL edit the categories after it was clear that "his view" was not consensus when the CfDs aren't concluded yet and even your saying there is no consensus? I just don't get it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you thought I was saying it was okay to empty categories in the middle of a deletion discussion. I was just saying that I'm seeing it happen repeatedly and from CFD regulars. But I complain about it at WP:CFD all of the time. It is irritating because editors spend their time considering the merits of the deletion proposal and emptying out the categories prematurely is a waste of their time. It bypasses the consensus building process. It's one thing if a category has only one page in it or if the category doesn't fit into the existing category structure & is a mistaken creation but to do it on a regular and widespread basis is disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I miss-read or miss-represented your opinion. To me something is OK to do, as far as not being worth sanctioning any person over, if it's being done by a bunch of people already. Especially if there's no guideline against it. I don't think that means it "should" ultimately be done though and looking over your comment a second time (not on a cell phone) I can see that you weren't saying it was OK to do either. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have no comments about the Johnpacklambert's edits but as someone who regularly deals with empty categories, it's becoming more common for categories to be emptied prior to a CFD decision. I'm not pointing fingers, just pointing at a trend for categories to be emptied prior to a decision of whether to delete, merge or rename categories. It can sometimes be a challenge to determine who is emptying them. It might be a good discussion to happen at WT:CFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• None of these entries fit in the category in question. Odessa was part of the area of the Ottoman Empire that as a unit was much further south. It was no more part of any logical Ukraine than anything in Bessarabia. In the case of the places in Austria-Hungary they cannot be placed in a category under the Russian Empire. In the first two cases there is not enough evidence to place them in a specific year. If something clearly does not belong in a category, it can be removed, even if it is the only entry. I even explained in depth about the first two having no evidence that was the year of their founding. There is no coherent way to say any of these things happened in Ukraine in those specific years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• The first example, the university in Lviv, was founded in what was then Lemberg. Which was in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Ukraine category for that year is a sub category of the Russian Empire category, so we cannot place in it things that clearly happened outside the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually that was in 1852, so it was in the Austrian Empire. There is no reason to allow categorization to be preserved in a case where it is so clearly wrong. Only a few years before the Polish nationalists in that area had insisted the very idea that there were Ukrainians was a ploy by the Austrian government to kill the asperations of Polish nationalists. National identities are very contested in the 19th century, but in Europe international boundaries at any given time are clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    Johnpacklambert, please respect WP:BRD and discuss the specific category changes at the relevant articles’ talk pages, or better yet, wait for your CFD results before making changes. I filed this ANI because you refused to do that, there, and not to re-litigate the subject-specific questions here. —Michael Z. 16:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:BRD that dictates discussions have to occur on the articles talk pages when there's a dispute, otherwise there couldn't be RfCs or ANI complaints, and JPL was discussing the changes on the relevant CfD talk pages. Which is more then adequate. Or it would have needlessly created duplicate discussions with the same exact people and points being made. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Johnpacklambert should stop emptying categories he nominated (or plans to nominate) for deletion, as that influences and pre-empts the discussion badly. In many cases, his nominations for "obviously wrong" categories failed to get consensus, as there is serious disagreement about the best way to categorize such establishment by country / region / whatever entries (for JPL and some others, only one view is possible, the "historical" one, and the "current" point of view, that something in "current" country X was established in year Y, is unacceptable and should be eradicated by all means possible: the idea that a lot of readers might be more interested in what was established in what was established Ukraine throughout the ages, year by year, even at times when the country didn't exist, seems to be totally alien or unacceptable to them, as it is "wrong" from their point of view and no other point of view is acceptable). If they are not willing to stop this, I guess another editing restriction is in order. Fram (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact details and I don't feel like bludgeoning, but there was an AfD recently for what was essentially a personal essay written by someone who thought Afghanistan (which was formed in like 1949) should somehow be credited for something done 2,000 years ago by Sumerians, just because it took place in what is now modern day Afghanistan. Not surprisingly the article wasn't kept. If allowed, such articles are a huge slippery slope that can lead to a lot of nationalist type edit warring, arguing, and nonsensical duplication of historical subjects.

Whatever our personals beliefs about the issue are, it wouldn't be a maintainable, fair way of doing things. Especially when people start wanting to go the other way with it, where Sumerians are supposedly responsible for things currently taking place in Afghanistan because time/ownership are just imperialist/colonialist Western scientific notions and other views are possible, or whatever. At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article. There's zero precedence for it either. Let alone is it worth restricting JBL's editing abilities due to him keeping the slope from being slid down. Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

...which is hardly comparable to the current issue, i.e. that e.g. the Odessa University, a currently existing, major university in a major city in Ukraine, is removed from the "what things in Ukraine were established in what year" category tree[14] because it wasn't Ukraine in that year, and may only be included in the Category:1865 establishments in the Russian Empire. Now, Johnpacklambert may argue that at CfD (though he could do with turning down the hyperbole about how terrible and stuoid it is to have the "current country" cats as well), but emptying the category at the same time is not allowed. That's the behaviour problem for which a restriction may be needed, the other issue is the way he treats the content issue as if his PoV is the only possibly correct one and the opposite position, which would allow for both categories (one historical, one from the current situation) is an abomination. A tree of what is or would be currently located in country (or US state or whatever), by year of (dis)establishment, is of interest to readers, and informs clearly and succinctly about things that shaped the current country, even if the country didn't exist at all at the time of establishment. The dogmatism that only one tree is valid and the other needs to be erased is highly tiring. Fram (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point. From what I can tell it also lines up with how historical subjects are handled in Wikipedia more broadly. Maybe the Ukraine/Russian Empire thing is (or should be) an exception. I really don't know. Anyway, with your tree thing sure it would be of interest to readers, but what readers find interesting shouldn't come at the cost of accuracy. You can't really have a "current situation" category for things that are in the past. Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period. Just like Spain/Mexico City/Tenochtitlan aren't all the same thing and things related to them shouldn't all be in the same category just because the area that comprises modern day Mexico City switched between them (and likely other groups) multiple times. So what if readers would find it interesting or that there were trees during the Silurian period on the landmass that now makes up the United States? Also, emptying the categories is allowed. Otherwise, can you point to a guideline/RfC/anything that's not an essay that says it isn't? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think it makes much sense to continue this discussion if you try to continue it with ridiculous examples, but without actually adressing the issues (simply "claiming" that it isn't accurate that e.g. the Odessa University is in Ukraine, and was established in 1855 or whetever year it is), and if you claim that something can't be someone's PoV if that position is shared by others as well (???). But to address your final point: the introduction of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion says "Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.". Which is exactly what they are doing, and what is being discussed here. Fram (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

How is it a ridiculous example when fossilized trees from the Silurian period exist on the landmass that the United States currently occupies? It's literally the exact same thing as the University. Just because one is a tree and the other is a building/organization doesn't make the standard we should apply to them any different, or one ridiculous and the other not. I think Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine is a perfectly example of that. There was no Ukraine in 1431. When you do a Google search for "1431 Ukraine" all that comes up is the Wikipedia category. So 100% that's exactly the same as the tree example. If one is ridiculous, then both are and so is the category.

With the CfDs being depopulated, the guideline says not to do it if doing so will be controversial. if it was clear that the CfDs were likely going to be closed as "not keep" (which seemed to be the case) then IMO it wasn't controversial to depopulate them. Unless I missed it I didn't see Mzajac ask JPL not to depopulate the categories in the CfDs themselves either. The fact that JPL, not Mzajac, brought up someone else doing it makes me think that Mzajac wasn't really that concerned about it at the time either. I'd hardly call one person taking issue with something in an ANI complaint after the fact a controversy. It's pretty clear that JPL is being singled out over it also. Since no one else that has done it is a part of this complaint. Plus, Mzajac went out of their way to specifically call out JPL and say he was doing it "to head off consensus." None of which should be encouraged. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Where did you get the "which seemed to be the case"? There have been plenty such discussions, and they nearly always are controversial. The issue of depopulating cats under discussion was already brought to their attention in 2011 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 2#Note), 2012 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 3#CfD a,d January 2021 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 7#Establishment in Taiwan categories) (the latter one makes it abundantly clear that they are aware that these nominations are controversial). And from his current talk page, we have User talk:Johnpacklambert#Russian Empire-categories. As for "ridiculous example", we are talking about the "established in" categories, and you discuss fossilized trees. If you consider that "literally the exact same thing", then our positions on what is reality are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion. Fram (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about in the CfD. I don't think a discussion from 10 years ago on his talk page is that great of an example. With the one in 2021, it looks like what was said is that the categories shouldn't be emptied because it looks "like a sneaky attempt to circumvent the CfD process." In no way does that translate to "hey, maybe you shouldn't be emptying categories because it's controversial." Even if it did, one person saying something on a users talk page doesn't mean what they are saying has wider community support. Plus, you can't say the CfD rules are being broken if the categories were emptied before the CfD. Look at it this way, there's a tree on the landmass that the United States currently occupies. The tree (de)established before the United States was formed. Then there's a university in the Ukraine, that was started before the Ukraine was formed. How are those fundamentally different? If you think they are, cool. IMO figuring this out is fundamental both to if JPL did something or not and how to move forward the CfDs. Just saying they are different and that we can't have a meaningful discussion because of it doesn't help though. Pick a better example. I don't really care. What about Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine when there's literally nothing that connects Ukraine to that date? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to accent my point, it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started. So saying the category should not have been depopulated because of the CfD guidelines is wrong. Since there was no CfD at that point. Also, one of the articles he removed, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine (which was the only example I could find), clearly states that they don't know when the city was founded. So, it clearly shouldn't have been in the category anyway. I have nothing more to add. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Avoiding the "don't depopulate during the CfD" by depopulating right before the CfD is hardly any better, but is a nice example of wikilawyering. And examples of his emptying of cats during the CfDs have been given, e.g. on Odessa University he removed the cat on 23 June[15], 5 days after he has nominated it[16], and at a time when there were already three oppositions to the nomination (so the "didn't know it would be controversial" defense is again shown to be clearly invalid). Also this one, this one, this one... Fram (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point. It happens sometimes. I know I've done AfDs for articles that I edited beforehand because it turned out the sources weren't as solid as I originally thought they were. Specifically with Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine there doesn't have to be anything in the category for people to know that there wasn't such thing as the Ukraine in 1431. So nothing could have been established in the Ukraine at time. It doesn't matter to the CfD what's in the category or not, because it's literally a hoax. None of the keep "voters" ever addressed that fact either. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD[17][18]??? Uh, bye, thanks for confirming my first impression that discussing this with you was a total waste of time. Fram (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD. Since that's what we were talking about. Either way, with your first example he said why he removed it in the changeset comment and it seems like a reasonable explanation. Same with the other one. There isn't a known establishment date for the city. Nothing says clear categorization errors can't be fixed while a CfD is going on. None of the edits that I've seen show a clear intent on his part to try and stake the CfD (or whatever claim Mzajac is making) either. Outside of that, I'm not going to litigate every single edit or discussion he's been involved in over the last 10 years just so I can read (IMO) non-existent bad intent into his actions. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD." Such an edit doesn't seem to exist, not in the one article you provided, and not in the other one I provided; both of these were already given in the opening post of this thread, so nothing new there. So it appears that not only did you not provide a single new element, you furthermore made, again and again and again, incorrect claims about these old elements. I hope you were simply mistaken and not trolling, but coupled with the "fossilized trees" attempt above it sure looks that way. Fram (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know we were required to add anything new to ANI complaints aside from our opinions about if action should be taken on them or not. Which I've clearly gone above and beyond. Also, I don't know what "incorrect claims about these old elements" that I've supposedly repeatedly made is in reference to. Outside of that I'm not engaging in this discussion anymore. Since I've said all I need to and it's pretty obvious that your just trying to provoke me. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment So the view of some is I shopuld leave in a category articles that either A-were clearly created outside of Ukraine in that year if Ukraine is as our own category structure says it was a sub-units of the Russian Empire, ignoring that the Russian Empire recognized no sub-unit. B- articles that expressly state that the year the subject was established is unknown, so how exactly do we then categorize it in a specific year. There should be no precendent to leave such very clearly wrong categorizations in place just because they happen to be the only one in a specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Liz and Fram have provided sufficiently clear reasoning for why editors should not depopulate categories that they have nominated or plan to nominate for deletion. You don't seem to be engaging with those reasons. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Fram. Such edits with such justification (edit summary) are questionable. As reflected on our page Ukraine, this is not just the modern day country. My very best wishes (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What about things that took place in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? Just put them in multiple categories or one for "Ukraine" stuff and call it good there? Also, how is it fair to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth or not robbing them of their history to credit stuff they did to the Ukraine just because both were in the same area at different times? Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI is not the proper forum for debating the merits of the disputed categories. If a category is problematic, get it fixed or deleted at CfD. If the CfD results in a delete outcome, then the category can easily be removed from all pages at that point. But if consensus does not support such removals, they should not be carried out. In short, JPL needs to get consensus before he blanks the categories. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that in general. The problem is that this ANI complaint is about specific edits. One of which was him removing an article from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine because it doesn't have a known establishment date. I don't see how it can be determined if that was the right action to take or not if we can't discuss categories. Nor is it a given that there needs to be consensus before removing an article for something that doesn't have an establishment date from a category that's about places with establishment dates. There is zero consensus that someone can put whatever they want in establishment date categories and then there has to be a protracted, consensus building discussion to find out if the edit is OK before the articles can be removed. No one is out there asking permission on talk pages to remove irrelevant, off topic entries from categories. Even if it empties the category. A few people complaining about something on a user page doesn't represent the broader consensus of the community either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the angle from which one endeavors to view the situation, the bare fact remains that JPL has been emptying categories shortly before and after he has nominated them for deletion. Moreover, he appears to have disengaged from this thread without acknowledging the substance of the concerns raised by Liz, Fram, and co. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that at the bare minimum JPL should acknowledge that a few people are concerned with him emptying categories. It's not like he's completely ignored that a couple of people think it's a problem though and in the meantime I'd still like to see the broader issue that led to this dealt with. It's not really helpful to the health of the platform (or editors) if everything ends in someone being blocked from editing because a few people took with their edits in an ANI complaint, without more being done to address the root cause of it. Totally, JPL should acknowledge that's it an issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (as participant) It's definitely best practice to leave the articles as is in categories so that other editors can evaluate them themselves in CFD. (I may have occasionally done this myself though when I thought I could save a cat before realizing that was hopeless and then nominating it for deletion.) There have also been a lot of other challenges with these CFD discussions with cutting and pasting, questioning motives, and especially WP:RGW. I don't think these nominations, including my edits, have brought us closer to a consensus about the categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Conversely, there seems to be mass-populating of categories going on with regards to expatriates. Raised on Lambert's talkpage, to be met with a wall of rambling text. When another query is raised, it's met with this reply. Hopefully every single one of those categories added is supported in the article and they aren't BLP violations. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"A wall of rambling text" that the person he was writing it in response to enthusiastically thanked him for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It was that long I gave up before getting that far! I read that reply has humouring Lambert. I may, of course, be wrong. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• This was raised by Lugnuts just above; is replying "THis is just plain stupidity on your part."[19] really acceptable? It again is a case of Johnpacklambert seeing his interpretation of a term as the only possible one, and rather vehemently denying that other interpretations are possible: but this time it doesn't attack the results, but the person asking a civil, logical question. If this is the stress caused to Johnpacklambert when his categorization edits are challenged, then it may be better to get him removed from discussing categorization. Fram (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Kind of like you telling someone "I hope you were simply mistaken and not trolling" because you don't like their civil, logical questions? "If this is the stress caused to Fram when he's asked questions in ANI, then it may be better to get him removed from ANI discussions." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can look for my comment in this discussion and judge whether it was a reply to a "civil logical question" or instead to yet another blatantly incorrect statement of fact. But feel free to raise my comment in a separate section or subsection if you think it was problematic: what I said to you doesn't really impact what a third person said to a fourth one. Fram (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How was me posing a hypothetical question about trees that are located in America a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact"? Hypothetical questions don't have correct answers and they aren't facts either. Anyway, what I think is problematic (or really just kind of odd) is that your saying he should be blocked for calling something stupid, an extremely minor thing. When your ignoring him not acknowledging his edits are a problem. Which is something that has consensus is an issue and can actually lead to sanctions. If you want him to be blocked, why not bandwagon around something that actually has a chance of leading to it? "It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The "blatantly incorrect statement of fact", as I pointed out in that part of the discussion, was you claiming " it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started.", and in a next post "I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point", and in a third post "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD.", even when it was pointed out again and again that all edits removing articles from categories were made after the CfD had started. I hope this is finally clear now? Fram (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though. Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." Your the one lacking clarity here because for whatever reason you keep reading non-existent bad intent into the mistake when there was none. Are we finally clear about it now or are you going to keep acting like I miss-read the edit histories on purpose? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Where have you said that already? I can't find it in the above discussion. Fram (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So he removed Beskydy Tunnel from Category:1886 establishments in Ukraine at 13:28, on 18 June 2021. He also removed Lviv National Agrarian University from Category:1852 establishments in Ukraine at 13:24 on 18 June 2021. The CfD for both wasn't started until 14:00, 18 June 2021. Which was half an hour after he removed the articles from the categories. Those are the edits I was originally talking about. Are we clear now? Next time you repeatedly accuse someone of making "blatantly incorrect statements again and again", maybe at least check first to make sure they are actually incorrect. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So "you were originally talking about" these examples you never gave then, and not about the examples you gave at that time? Furthermore, your claim in your previous post (that you misread the dates and had already said this) is apparently something you made up and now try to ignore? Finally, the Lviv National Agrarian University edit was made at 13.24[20], but the CfD nomination was started at 13.23[21]. In the next 40 minutes or so, he was adding cats to the nomination, and removing articles from the cats at the same time (e.g. the Beskydy edit at 13.28, and the cat nom at 13.29[22]). So, as has been said all this time, he wasn't first removing articles from categories and only then realising that deleting the cats altogether would be better: he was removing some articles from the categories during and after the nominations. As was clear from the very start of this discussion, and is clear from his edit list (here, edits starting at 13.06 on 18 June and ending at 14.01 the same day). Fram (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to accuse me of trolling and trying to hide the discussion? Weird thing to do if your right and I'm just trolling. Also, it's Interesting that this whole conversation suddenly became off topic and of zero benefit when it turned out you were wrong, not back when you repeatedly trying to instigate and perpetuate things lol. Anyway, I did miss-read the date of one of his edits, which was the example I originally provided you. That doesn't mean it was the only example I had or was going to give you though. I just decided not to provide the other ones because you started accusing me of trolling and I didn't want to feed into your bad faithed baiting. So there was really zero point. Plus, it's not like you couldn't have looked at his edits yourself anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems to have been a bit de-railed somewhat. Notwithstanding, there are still some legitimate concerns still to be addressed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• And, in the meantime, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#1431 establishments in Ukraine has been closed: “The result of the discussion was: delete as currently empty”. It appears as if the nominator emptying the category led directly to its closing, possibly irregardless of consensus or its absence in the discussion. —Michael Z. 20:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indeed, a Cfd discussion can hardly take place if the category has been emptied, so this practice subverts the process in the most serious way. It is easy to get away with, and rarely penalized, and that needs to change. God knows what the TLDR above is about, but whoever has been doing this should be sanctioned. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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

I have misgivings about whether this thread should be closed by a non-admin. Furthermore, I object to the claim that the 1431 CfD is a 'red herring'. If I understand correctly, it was JPL who emptied out the category, and the subsequent deletion was based on the emptiness of the category, so it seems that JPL's actions are absolutely the reason why that category was deleted. I urge @力: to reevaluate their close, especially in light of recent comments which suggest the discussion was not over. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you objecting because you think my close is wrong, or because I am not an admin? And I stand by (and will continue to stand by) my statement regarding the 1431 category; it is simply an observation of discussion on other pages. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Both. I think this thread was murky enough that it required admin attention. Also, your statement on the 1431 category is incorrect. JPL emptied the category; the category was deleted because it was empty. So yes, that category was deleted because of JPL's actions and it is not at all a 'red herring'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• While administrators go through a vetting process at WP:RFA, a non-admin can have just as much if not more experience in handling closes such as this. User:力 has been active on the project for 5 years, with 40k+ edits. I haven't done a thorough review, but I think WP:NACEXP has been met based on my cursory review. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  Regardless of the closer's level of experience, the closing statement is still flawed. That's the bigger issue. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Adamant1

Can some uninvolved people pleasego through the above interactions between myself and User:Adamant1 (in the thread "User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring"), and see whether my feeling that all they are doing is simply trolling is correct or not? I'm way beyond the end of my patience. It started with my edit of 16:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC), and I hoped it would have finished with Adamant1s edit from 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC) where they seemed to say that they would disengage from the discussion.

However, when I today posted (08:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)), Adamant1 continued where they stopped the last time. Basically, they simply make up stuff to be able to contradict, and when challenged on this move on to another made-up thing, with some other bizarre asides thrown in for good measure. Diffs are no use to illustrate this, the best thing is to read thowe two subsections to get an idea of the discussion.

Please just make them stop and hat the two sections which do nothing to help the discussion forward. Fram (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A few things,

1. I didn't continue the back and forth. Nor did I start it. Fram did by responding to me on 1676_establishments_in_Ukraine when I asked Michael Z where they got their population numbers from after I said I was done talking to him. He did the same thing on the ANI board, where he originally started the discussion by responding to something I said to someone else. He was also repeatedly critical of my messages in the same discussions. Otherwise, I wouldn't have continued talking to him. It's rather weird to repeatedly start and continue conversations with someone, even after they say their done, and then blame them for it.

2. He was pretty disparaging from the start about my participation in the ANI complaint and the other conversations related to it. He accused me of trolling (including "incessant trolling" on my talk page) and lying multiple times. Without providing any evidence of either. He also said a lot of rather uncivil combative things when I was making a good faith effort to figure out what his problem was. Like "discussing it with me was a total waste of time", "our positions on what is reality are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion," "Acknowledging such errors would really make these discussions with you easier," "If you would start by reading what people are actually writing, and not what you think happened or was said, we may get some progress." None of that is civil or good faithed.

3. Fram say's that I'm repeatedly making stuff up and then moving on to other things. Since he didn't provide an example I assume it's in reference to me saying that JPL removed articles from the categories before he started the CfDs. Which I provided him examples of. Instead of accepting them, he just hid the discussion, continued accusing me of trolling, and opened this report when I unhid the discussion. Probably because he was trying to hide him being wrong and the evidence that JPL didn't remove the categories after he created the CfDs.

4. I would have liked it if Fram had of stopped accusing me of trolling and inserting themselves in conversations I was having with other people. If they had of, the conversation they are now taking issue with wouldn't have occurred. It did because Fram continued it. Also, I don't think the two sections should be hidden because they contain examples of JPL removing the categories before he did the CfDs. which IMO are important to the ANI complaint. Overall, I think I've been pretty civil about the whole thing. I sure don't see anything "trollish" about my behavior. Let alone incessantly so. I was just giving my opinion about why I thought JPL shouldn't be blocked from editing. Which for whatever reason was responded to by Fram with uncivility. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't plan on responding to your continually-edited post, but "He did the same thing on the ANI board, where he originally started the discussion by responding to something I said to someone else."? Diff please. My first post to the JPL discussion was this, a reply to the opening post, not to you. Then followed your reply, and a back-and-forth. I then stopped posting to the thread, until this morning, when I posted this, which again is not a reply to you or about you at all. You then again started responding, and eventually here we are. Your claim should be easy to support with a diff of what you mean, or easy to retract if it is a mistake. Fram (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"My first post to the JPL discussion was a reply to the opening post, not to you" My post below that (which you responded to) was in general and had nothing particular to do with you or what you said. I just didn't indent it probably. Something that for some dumb reason I routinely have issues with. That's why I said "Whatever our personals beliefs about the issue are", instead of "whatever Fram's personal beliefs are." I was talking about the wider participates of the complaint, including myself. I guess your included in that, but it wasn't directed at you or your comment above it. Otherwise, I would have said so. I can see why you'd think it was though since I screwed up the indent. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside the dubious claim that their reply to my first post wasn't actually a reply, we can at least agree that, contrary to #1 above, I didn't start at ANI by responding to "what you said to someone else" (which now turns out to have been a "general" post to no one in particular apparently). so let's move on to claim #2: "without providing any evidence of either" (i.e. of trolling or lying).

Their first reply to me (sorry, comment to someone else) was a post about some unnamed, unlinked AfD about some essay that got deleted. It then turned into claims that using my reasoning, "At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article.".[23]. I tried to get the discussion back on topic[24], only to be replied to with another ridiculous example[25] ("Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period."), and other elements that didn't make sense at all ("I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point."???)

Adamant then started their claims that there was no problem with JPL's removing of articles from categories at CfD: at first[26] because "if it was clear that the CfDs were likely going to be closed as "not keep" (which seemed to be the case) then IMO it wasn't controversial to depopulate them." I pointed out that such CfDs often have been controversial, that JPL knew this, and that he had been informed about the issues, both long ago and very recently[27].

Adamant's then changed tack, and started to claim that "Plus, you can't say the CfD rules are being broken if the categories were emptied before the CfD." They repeated that point in another post soon after[28]: "it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started.", coupled with "one of the articles he removed, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine (which was the only example I could find)"... Now, Khmelnytskyi, which was already posted in the opening post of the thread, was removed from the cat on 23 June[29], while the CfD was started on 18 June. So the only example "they could find" was completely incorrect. When I pointed out, with examples, that the depopulations were done after the CfD started, the reply was "I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point.", another example of trolling.

I replied with "He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD???" again with diffs, but Adamant replied "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD." As it had now been pointed out repeatedly that no such edit existed, I had to conclude that I was dealing with either someone lacking the necessary competence to even look at diffs, never mind have an ANI discussion about them, or someone who was trolling. The evidence pointed strongly in the second direction. When their incorrect claims were pointed out, they suddenly changed to "Also, I don't know what "incorrect claims about these old elements" that I've supposedly repeatedly made is in reference to." as if that wasn't clear.

The discussion one week later simply continued in the same vein, with Adamant changing their story multiple times, and providing examples which turned out to contradict his own claims. So yes, I fully stand by my claims that they are trolling and were making up things along the way. But contrary to what they claim, I provided evidence for this all along the way. Which also refutes their point 3, of course. They haven't provided a single example of JPL emptying categories, and only later deciding to CfD them. Their first examples were of category removals five days after the CfD started: their latest examples were of category removals during the time he created the CfD (literally). Inbetween, they claimed "Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." " but when asked to provide the diff of where they did this, they changed the subject, probably because no such edit existed. Fram (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There was nothing dubious about the claim that I screwed up the indenting of my comment. I do it all the time. If you want other examples I just did a similar thing in this diff from awhile ago. Same here and here. This diff where I over indented it. This diff where I under indented. There's also this diff where I did the same thing. I also did it in this diff. Etc. Etc. That's just in the last week or two. Your really looking for things to have an issue with. Your probably going to just hide this message, call it trolling, and then claim in your next message that I never provided any evidence like you did before. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the contents of that first reply, yes, it seems very obvious that it was a reply to me (I start about content, you reply about content: I finish with a call for a sanction, your reply ends while addressing that point). Looking at your many other claims which turned out to be false, I have no reason to believe you own your word on this one. In either case, it shows that your point 1 was wrong. As were points 2, 3 and 4. Fram (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "content" (every message is content and most of what everyone was saying had to with it), but the whole point in an ANI complaint is to decide if someone should be sanctioned for their behavior or not. I don't see how me bringing up something that is literally the point in the ANI complaint shows I was responding to you. Like five messages above that I said I didn't think it was worth sanctioning JPL and it had nothing to do with you. So can you point to anything I said that was directly responding to your message and not just a couple of vaguely related words that we both used? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Content" as different from, or in addition to, just "timing", "placement", "indentation". You acted as if only the indentation of your post was an indication of it being a reply to me, so I discussed its contents. No idea what's so hard to understand about this. Anyway, any news on your claim from 11:33, 19 July 2021 about that other mistake, "as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. "? Any post from before that time were you had actually said this? Fram (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense now. It's still not evidence of anything, but whatever. So you can't provide an example of anything I said that was directly responding to your message then? And here I thought you were all about diffs or it's just a false claim. Yet, weirdly you really haven't provided that many (if any). Let alone to show my message was responding to yours. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your whole message was a direct reply to my post, which you deny. What other diff can be presented for this than the one for your post[30][31]? (a diff I already presented among the many posted above, which you apparently all missed?) I read this, due to the indentation and content, as a reply to my post, you deny this. In any case, it clearly indicates that your claim that my first post to the discussion was a reply to you, was false, as my first post was the one to which you "seemed to" reply. Meanwhile, you still haven't given an answer to support your claim from 11.33 from 19 July. Fram (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Move to close. Is this back and forth going anywhere? This is a discussion about a discussion on ANI? How about both sides stop discussing and back off?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion about editor behaviour, with one side making one false claim after another, interspersed with alot of ridiculous or baffling statements. Their "defense" so far has been shown to be of the same calibre, and I'm trying to get them to respond to another claim they made which should be very easy to substantiate (or to simply admit that it was wrong), but where three requests so far have not produced any result. Of course you or anyone are free to close it, but I don't believe that letting people state whatever falsehoods they like in discussions is in any way acceptable or productive, and editors should be held accountable for such things. Closing this down simply because they try to wriggle out of it all the time and no one else is willing to wade into this is a rather sad state of affairs. The basis for discussions (at ANI and elsewhere) should be that we can trust each other to tell the truth (with occasional mistakes, but not with multiple endlessly repeated falsehoods) and that we can try to resolve differences of opinion on that basis. With this editor, that trust is completely lacking, as they seem much more interested in trolling again, and again, and again. I see here that they got a two week block late last year for "bludgeoning, condescending, talking down to people, misconstruing and misrepresenting comments, and so forth". Only a few weeks ago, multiple editors were calling for an "indef and move on" block for Adamant1[32] for continuation of the same behaviour. Fram (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A call for an "indef and move on" that went nowhere because the majority of the people who commented thought the complaint was either completely meritless or didn't warrant a block. So what's your point? From my perspective the basis for discussions (at ANI and elsewhere) should be that we will assume good faith and take people at their word when they say who their messages are written to, or editors who are unwilling to should be held accountable for such things. From my side I've been more then willing to explain my actions and provided evidence for everything you accused me of. You've just been unwilling to assume good faith and accept my explanations. Instead, you keep baselessly repeating that I'm trying to "wriggle out of it all" and you keep wrongly saying I'm endlessly repeating falsehoods. Despite that, I'm more then willing to call this a wash if you are. I highly doubt anyone wants this to continue. Why not humor them? -Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, coupled with all other falsehoods, "mistakes", and ridiculous asides they proclaimed, I've now three times asked them to substantiate one simple thing they claimed, that what I claimed was a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact" was in fact Adamant1 misreading things, which they had already said at the time I repeated my claims.[33] I asked them then to provide a diff of where they did this, and did so in this discussion again two times. Either they indeed did this, but I kept on banging on about it, in which case providing evidence of it would be a very good thing for them to do and would seriously weaken all my claims. Or they made another mistake, but they have had plenty of time to acknowledge this by now. Or, as was clear a long time ago, they are simply trolling. Despite this, they claim right above that they "provided evidence for everything you accused me of." An editor who makes up such stuff is not an editor we can trust, and not an editor I think we should keep around. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lets see, so far you've been wrong that I lied about JPL removing articles from the categories before he did the CfDs and you were wrong that my message was in response to yours. Not only that, but you've continued calling me a liar about both even after it was clear that you were wrong. Instead of just admitting that you were wrong. An editor who does such stuff is not an editor we can trust, and not an editor I think we should keep around. Or, you could can just take the L since your currently 1 to 2 and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block Adamant1

They were blocked for 2 weeks last year, and narrowly escaped another block just weeks ago. They are now constantly trolling (see above). Enough is enough, this isn't an editor we need to keep around any longer. Please read the above and the previous two ANI discussions about them. Without trust, we can't build a collaborative encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Originally, you asked someone to read through the discussion and give their opinion about if I was trolling or not. Dumuzid did and wrote me a message on my talk page that I wasn't trolling. Yet, you've ignored it and are continuing to accuse me of constantly trolling and your trying to get me blocked for something I didn't even do. How exactly is that a way to build a collaborative encyclopedia? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Since I have been invoked, I figure I had better chime in. I wrote on your talk page, Adamant1, because I wanted to offer advice rather than weigh in on an AN/I matter. I take no position on this proposal, but I will say even with my assumption of good faith, there is a lot of tendentious editing and bludgeoning here. If you are not blocked, I would again advise you to try to be a bit more succinct and that not every slight--imagined or otherwise--demands an elaborate response. As ever, just the way I see things, and you are more than welcome to disregard. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for chimming in and the advice. It's always welcome when given in good faith. I've been a lot more succient in this complaint then past ones and its something I plan on continuing to work on. Reminders in the meantime don't hurt though. Cheers. Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(see above) - The above thread in turn points to another long thread, which points to various other threads. Proposing an indef based on such a "see above" seems like a big ask that would make it hard for people to evaluate without having already been involved. Is it clear-cut enough that there are specific diffs of trolling? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW this may or may not be relevant (I think it may be, looking through some of this, so I'm just going to leave it here in case anyone finds it useful). I remember some years ago talking with DGG about heated discussions on Wikipedia in general. He said -- and I think he won't mind my paraphrasing here -- that he really tries to set a hard two-reply limit for himself in any particular thread. That way he thinks more about those replies and doesn't get dragged into a long, fruitless, and perhaps escalating back-and-forth. While I don't personally keep a number in mind, it's something I remember when I ask myself "do I really need to reply again." Jury's out whether I'm successful :) but I found it to be a simple and interesting approach to a common challenge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll try, but it is more of an accumulation of stuff than one or two very clear diffs.

• Ridiculous comparisons: in a discussion about whether e.g. Odessa University may be in a category for establishments in Ukraine in 1685, they posted this as a reply: "Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period." A previous reply already included "At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article."
• Making false claims: they repeatedly claimed that JohnPackLambert had removed categories from articles before nominating these for CfD (instead of during the CfD), e.g. here, here, here and here (another good example of a trolling post as well). Each time, I pointed out that no such edits were made, that even in the example Adamant1 provided, the category removal in the article was done 5 days after the CfD started (and when multiple people had already opposed it), but then suddenly they didn't understand what I was talking about[34]
• When the discussion restarted 6 days later, I confronted him with the above false statements, only to again be met with a lack of understanding what I meant[35]
• He then suddenly changed direction, and claimed that they had already acknowledged their mistake[36]: "It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though. Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." " Fine, it shouldn't be too hard to provide a diff of where this happened then, surely? But despite four requests so far, no diff of where this happened has been provided.

This is just a summary of some points, there are other examples (e.g. when I talk about the POV of JohnPackLambert, the reply I get starts with "First of all, I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point." Apparently, when there are others with the same PoV, it is no longer correct somehow to call this the POV of the one that started the CfD?) It's all these small and larger issues which make having a meaningful discussion impossible. Fram (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

With your first point, in hindsight I probably could have used a better example. I'd hardly call it trolling though. With your second, I provided the date and times of when JPL made the edits and they were done half an hour before he started the CfDs. So in no way was that trolling or making false claims. It's ridiculous that you keep saying it was. On your third, I'm pretty sure I had already said I miss-read the date of one of his edits. Maybe I said it to someone else though. I don't have the time or urge to look through a weeks worth of messages to figure it out. Someone forgetting what they said or who they said it to isn't trolling anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

For people reading this, just look at this diff[37] and the two edits preceding it (included in the diff). First post is Adamant1 stating or pretending that "How was me posing a hypothetical question about trees that are located in America a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact"?" I then explained again that the incorrect statements were about the dates of JPL's edits, not about that tree thing. The reply (see diff): "It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though.", and then followed the claim which they now can't remember any details about and is unwilling to look for. Despite claiming in this very section "From my side I've been more then willing to explain my actions and provided evidence for everything you accused me of." And all that isn't trolling? Fram (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't trolling, but if not then it's very definitely a case of WP:CIR. The fact that this editor comprehensively fails that has been obvious ever since he started editing. Why has everyone let him carry on, despite several trips here? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm pretty incompetent about how to indent messages. I have like an 88% success rate on AfDs though. So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower. Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1, no no no you don’t talk to Phil Bridger in that manner, even though you struck it out, you never should have made such statement. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Its wierd how when I provided the details of JPLs edits I was trolling, but if I don't provide the details of something else I'm still trolling. Is there anything that Fram is not going to say is trolling? At this point I really doubt it. And then he wonders why I'm not in a hurry to figure out who I said what to. There's really zero point when its trolling all the way down either way. Adamant1 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef ugh. We have a comment thread about trolling (and that you shouldn't be trolling), and Adamant makes this edit, which is pretty obviously trolling. There is absolutely no need for My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower., and I don't want to hear more explanations of how they didn't know it was inappropriate. I would suggest a project-space ban, but Adamant1 doesn't seem to be editing articles either. I don't see any good reason to give them another chance which would just waste more time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh come on. I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels. Especially when it has nothing to do with the ANI complaint. More so because Phil Bridger is always saying stuff about my edits in AfDs. That said, I struck it out because I probably shouldn't have said it anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have given this advice several times at AN/I, and it has never been followed (somewhat understandably), but I will try again. I think by far the best thing you could do to avoid a sanction at this point is to say "I'm sorry, I understand why what I did is problematic, and I'll do my best to avoid it in the future," and then to completely ignore this thread forevermore. I don't know if I could do it myself, but I genuinely think it's the best course of action. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as the comment that I made to Phil Bridger sure. I'm sorry that I said it. I shouldn't have made the comment. Clearly it's problematic to say anything even remotely trolling in an ANI complaint about trolling. I was more then civil up until then though, way more then I have been in the past, and I'm not going to undermine the progress I've made by apologizing for things I didn't do. Whatever the outcome of this I feel like I let myself down with the comment to Phil Bridger though. It was wrong of me to say. I should have just ignored him instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not just look at the facts rather than make such wildly wrong guesses? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I couldn't find the link. Why assume incompetence is the reason people are having issues? Its kind of hurtful to be accused of incompetence considering how much time and effort I put into my AfDs votes to make sure they are fair. Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You seemed to be perfectly capable of finding your own AfD stats, but you then go on to say that you can't find mine, which show that I disagree with the outcome less that half as often as you? And it's OK for you to base further discussion on your wild inaccurate guess? Sorry, but that can only be incompetence or trolling. If you have no idea about something then you simply don't talk about it rather than making things up. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone said what my stats were a few weeks ago. That's where I got them from. I know though, everything is trolling. At this point I'm not going to be that surprised if I get blocked considering the bar for what's wrong, trollish behavior is apparently literally anything. Adamant1 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You are, as so often, missing the point. You said above, "I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels. Especially when it has nothing to do with the ANI complaint." You were talking about me in the first sentence, and it is a bare-faced lie. You did not know anything about how often my opinions agree with closures, but you chose to base a whole sub-thread on this lie. As for the second sentence, who brought up AfD statistics to start with? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you were talking about me saying mine was 85% or whatever it is. I never claimed to know what yours is. That's why I said I imagine its low in the crossed out comment. True, you didn't bring up AfDs, but its the only place we have ever interacted and I don't work on much else. So naturally I figured that's what you were saying I lack competence in. No harm, no foul. Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: You never claimed to know what Phil Bridger's AFD correct rate is, yet felt it necessary to insinuate his rate was a lot lower than yours? Why? WP:NPA quite clearly says in the very opening statement of that policy "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." I seriously doubt there is any part of this that is unclear to you, most especially given that three different threads in the last eight months regarding your behavior (November 2020, December 2020, July 2021) concluded that you were out of line in your behavior towards other people. Saying "So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower." is deliberately antagonistic and is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. You are insulting him by way of insinuating he is incompetent. You can either choose to stop attacking and bludgeoning people on this project or you can find yourself not on this project anymore. Great, you struck out the comment. Make comments like this again, stricken or not, and I'm very confident you WILL be banned from this project,^* even if this thread doesn't conclude to ban you. It's your choice. Either be nice, or be gone. Full stop. Is there any part of this that is unclear to you? Please acknowledge you read this, even if you have nothing to say in response. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (* - just to be clear, I'm not stating it would be me doing the blocking, but I would be making a strong case why it would be necessary)

For the record; Adamant1 responded to my comment by way of thanking the edit [38]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't normally insert myself into discussions of this kind, but the indef support above had me take a look at your contribs and your habit of continually copy-editing your discussion comments... well, it's certainly something. This alone could justifiably be called disruptive, even if (possibly?) unintentionally so. I don't think your Wikipedia career is necessarily beyond saving yet, and I don't mean to be patronizing – however, if you do get through this, maybe you really should consider taking a second look that obscure article namespace from time to time, instead of getting bogged down in whatever exactly this is. AngryHarpy‍^talk 20:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a disability that makes it hard to write messages that don't contain errors. Dealing with that by editing my comments multiple times after the fact probably isn't the best way to deal with it though. I use to copy messages to Word so I could proof read them before posting. I'll probably go to back if I'm not blocked since how I'm doing it now clearly isn't effective. Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That does seem reasonable. If nothing else, you could take it as another reason to keep it a little more concise in the future. AngryHarpy‍^talk 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I have a similar problem and sometimes copy paste as well. The typos are maddening. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I note for the record that while making and revising remarks over the course of an hour may cause problems on high-volume administrative pages such as WP:ANI, it is almost always fine and unremarkable when writing non-controversial articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment In the meantime I deleted my watch list and unsubscribed from notifications. Since I've found it helps on other Wikimedia projects if I'm not getting emails or other notifications about every minutia that's going on. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef per fram they were blocked for incivility for 2 weeks last year and recently dragged to ani few weeks ago for same issues and narrowly survived it, they have been given too many ropes and their behaviour at this report includes WP:BLUDGEONing, incivility and badgering of other users,there has been no improvements.Ratnahastin(t.c) 07:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry I let people know that I'm taking measures to curb the issues. My behavior has been a lot better then what I was blocked for and I'm doing things to make sure it doesn't happen again. In no way is what I'm being reported for this time comparably to my behavior when I was blocked either. People shouldn't get blocked just because of past blocks or reports. Especially if the behavior isn't even on the same level and they are actively taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. Otherwise, it would be a punishment. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm doing things to make sure it doesn't happen again. What things? Levivich 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I opted out of notifications and deleted my watch list so I want have an immediate urge to respond to things anything. I'm not going to write important or long messages on my phone anymore either so I can proof read them in word first and send them the second they are written. Also, if I'm not indefed I'm going to request an extended block ( right now I'm thinking six months) so I can have some time to reflect, deal with things IRL that are stressing me out, and work on other projects. When I come back id like to do other things besides just AFDs. Since the toxicity involved in them really gets to me. I had looked into doing article review. Maybe I'll do some of that. Over focusing on AfDs has been to much of a stresser though. If you have suggestions of other things I can do or where else to put my efforts I'll look into them. Oh yeah, I think the whole "only write two responses" is a good idea to. Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  That all sound like good ideas, but the question I have is: when will you begin implementing them? This is not the first or second or third time... even just drilling down on a small issue, the "success rate" comments in this thread ("I have like an 88% success rate on AfDs though. So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower." and "Oh come on. I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels."), this isn't the first time you've made such allegations: you also did it here, here, and here. These are repeated, chronic issues that are being raised. The time for change is now. You don't need to be blocked; if you want to take a break, just take a break. Stop publishing edits. If you disappear for six months, I believe this thread will eventually archive unclosed, and the issue will die and be forgotten, and when you come back, as long as you don't cause new problems, no one will object. If instead of taking a break, you edit productively for six months, basically same result. What's keeping this alive--what's keeping you on the track to being sitebanned--is that you keep posting to ANI. You are demonstrating that you cannot walk away. The time for change is now. Levivich 15:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's a little unfair to ask me a question and then malign me a few messages down about how unable I am to walk away from this. Outside of responding to direct questions and pings I'm done with this. I already implemented 99% of what I said I'm going to do and I requested a six month block a while ago. It didn't happen though. So I'm going to request one again when this closes if I'm not indefed. I'm done with it otherwise, but don't be upset if I answer a question or ping. Also, I struck out the rude comment I made to Phil Bridger and apologized without hedging on it. 100% that's not something I would have done when I was blocked before. So changing now is exactly what I'm doing. Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  More lies. You struck the first comment that you made about my AfD stats, but you then went on to repeat it by saying, "I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels", which you did not strike but have continued to make excuses for your behaviour that would shame a three-year-old. What weird universe are we in where you claime that you "apologized without hedging on it"? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think I'm not seeing an indef here. Not before trying something else. I'm not sold that what's been called trolling is something other than a mixture of two parts poor communication, one part confusion, one part too many replies, and a soupçon of WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's not great, and is really difficult/exhausting to try to work with, but but it's also not jump-to-indef problematic yet IMO. Adamant, given there are clearly many people who find your behavior problematic here and in the previous thread, I think it would be a good idea to think about some kind of voluntary commitment to put people at ease. One thing that immediately comes to mind is voluntarily taking a break from deletion-related discussions for [3? 6?] months. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. I'm willing to commit to that. Which ever. Like I said, if I'm not indef blocked I want to be blocked for a while anyway to cool down and work on other things. I'd be fine with a 3 or 6 month block as part of that. Which would include not participating in deletion-related discussions. Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not indef, but FINAL WARNING; We've had three different threads in the last eight months that concluded that Adamant1 was out of line in their behavior (November 2020, December 2020, July 2021). I said in the July 2021 thread that we'd be back here again [39]. Just two weeks later, and we're here again. I'm not really interested in a cool down block, even if self imposed by Adamant1. The necessary behavior changes do not appear to be happening, despite several requests for such changes. We'll be back here again when the cool down block expires. Adamant1's been directed to our policies regarding these issues multiples times. This comment given by Adamant1 in a thread regarding his behavior is frankly unconscionable. There is no justification for it. It's an outright attack. In isolation, maybe not much. Given the prior threads regarding Adamant1's behavior, and given the comment was made in this very thread? Wow. Just .... WOW. Ok, Adamant1 struck it out, but if you look further down in that diff it feels like Adamant1 is doubling down on the accusation. For the record, Phil Bridger's AfD correct rate is just shy of 95% [40]. That said, his AfD correct rate shouldn't be pertinent to the discussion anyway. So, why not indef? A site ban is a serious thing. Yes, Adamant1 has seriously violated WP:5P4. But, I believe in final warnings. Whether the person who closes this thread issues such a final warning (assuming there's no site ban) or not, Adamant1 needs to understand there are no more chances. This is it. Adamant1 needs to avoid making any negative comments about other editors, bludgeoning, or otherwise being incivil, broadly construed. Either they improve their behavior or they are permanently gone from this site. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologized after I said the second part. Sure I didn't strike it out, because I didn't think to and I assumed it was part of the apology because I said I was sorry after the comment. What was I supposed to do, apologize for what I said before I said it? Also, I meant I didn't double down on the apology. I just apologized and left it at that without using it as another chance to take a dig at Phil Bridger. Which I would have done in the past. Adamant1 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If I were you, I would strike out both comments, in total, not just the bit you struck out, and issue a frank, and honest apology to Phil Bridger for calling their competence into question and doubling down on that accusation. You were completely, utterly, and unconscionably out of line. There is no excuse. Ok, you apologized before [41], but the part of that comment were you said "Clearly it's problematic to say anything even remotely trolling in an ANI complaint about trolling." can be construed as decidedly snarky given the context in which you said it. This is one of the problems I have with your behavior. You do not appear to be understanding the impact your words have. I echo the advise given by User:Dumuzid above ([42]). WP:JUSTDROPIT. This might seem counterintuitive. Your righteous ire might balk against it. But, the best thing you can do for yourself is to just drop it. Let this thread play out on its own. You might consider not even reading it anymore. Just walk away from it. Go back to doing productive things on the project and avoid (at ALL costs) making any uncivil comments anywhere on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as a time sink who is clearly more interested in trolling/nonsense, then building an encyclopedia. [I came here from his AN thread requesting a self block, which shows the continued lack of Clue.] Star Mississippi 18:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indef and move on (again) Seriously, not just my vote, but everything else I said before remains completely relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indef after reviewing this thread and the thread from earlier this month, I think it's clear that Adamant1 needs a community-imposed indefinite break from editing. Ideally, they will be able to come back in a year and demonstrate that they have made the necessary adjustments, but for the time being their battleground behavior is simply too disruptive to continue. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef and move on Enough is enough. The aspersions, trolling and the false claims have to stop. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — both Fram and Adamant1 are friends of mine and I have worked with both of them separately and say FWIW, can you both be mature about this, close this thread and settle your differences like men? Adamant1 does good job here although have their shortcomings, I don’t know if it’s possible, but Fram is it possible for you to close this thread and try and settle your differences, one which wouldn’t scar Adamant1? Celestina007 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Considering that they have now repeatedly called this complaint "meritless", I don't really see how it would be possible to settle this. Our positions are too different to find a middle ground, and the issues in my opinion to serious to simply let it drop (as they are recurring ones). Fram (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indef – the behavior above is precisely the conduct for which Adamant1 was warned not two weeks ago. The fact that it's continuing shows that he has not heeding the warnings given to him, and that's sufficient reason for a block. An indef isn't intended to be permanent, and I genuinely hope that Adamant1 is eventually able to return and contribute constructively. But until he's able to truly understand that incivility, aspersions, and battleground-type behavior aren't acceptable, his continued participation does the project more harm than good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Promises of improvement are well and good, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. At this point, given repeated issues, some compulsory time off is necessary. Then, the burden of proof will be on Adamant1 to demonstrate a real commitment to change rather than simply promising it until the next ANI appearance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as too harsh and out of proportion. A final warning seems more appropriate. I also sympathize with editors with a disability. Adamant1, sometimes saying less is more, especially at AfD and here on the drama boards. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: While I have no time or the patience to read through these walls of text, I do recall this thread from last year (followed by this) where Adamant1 was confronted over persistent disruptive behaviours. Bludgeoning (replying to every single comment in the thread that they disagreed with), battleground mentalities, making broad unprovable generalisations about groups of users, walking back previous statements in dubious ways (which trolling would explain), deflecting blame, and generally not getting the point. I am both disappointed and not surprised that they are currently facing an indef proposal that's gaining traction. I was hoping they would improve after being talked to, but that didn't happen. Darkknight2149 08:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- Permablocking someone over an argument that either participant could have walked away from seems overkill to me. And if we permablocked people just for making long-winded, difficult to follow arguments it seems like we'd have to cull half the ANI regulars. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

But Adamant1 doesn't walk away, he always seems very keen to give a very detailed explanation of why he is right and everyone else is wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he hasn't replied to this thread in five days suggests that's probably not completely accurate. Anyway, my opposition to a permablock is also based on whether I think in three months or six months or whenever he appeals it, whether his unblock request will get a fair hearing. I don't think it will. People permablocked for being too long winded, and nothing else, are in an unfortunate position here. If he writes a few sentences along the lines of, I've learned my lesson and I won't be such a persistently annoying blabbermouth, the appeal will certainly get a peremptory decline for being insufficiently detailed. One word more and it'll be "no no no, writing a bunch of text in your own defense is exactly what got you into trouble in the first place.".Reyk _YO! 14:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Final warning. As per the observations of Hammersoft, Isaidnoway, and Reyk, above. But this is a close call, no doubt: the present circumstances simply do not add up to anything for which any sanction (let alone an indef) seems appropriate and proportionate, but there is a compelling body of evidence here that this is just the latest salvo in a substantial pattern of disruption for which the user has received more than adequate feedback and more than generous WP:ROPE, and at this point they ought to understand that they need to be scrupulously courteous and above-aboard in their interactions with other editors in respect of that patience and clear community consensus on their previous conduct. That understanding is clearly not being internalized, and the context of the fact that this thread was probably unnecessary is not enough to erase the weight of even minor civility/PA infractions at this juncture. Adamant1 needs to recognize that they only still have their privileges by virtue of express indulgence from the community and thus if they so much as do the textual equivalent of harumphing at another editor in the next year, I would support an indef. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block. I was tempted to suggest a final warning, but I can't suggest that in good conscience. I appreciate Hammersoft's comments above, but my gut feeling is with several ANI trips by multiple editors already, the odds that if we don't block now we'll be doing it in six months anyway seem likely. The principal problem with Adamant1 is he bludgeons the discussion by replying to everyone and anyone, lobbing in the odd personal attack in the process, including this very thread. It's under this context, where he filled up walls of texts in several AfDs, that led me to believe we should consider sanctions. I don't think there's much wrong with his conduct outside this - he's entitled to give his views on any AfD or notability debate just as much as anyone else - but he doesn't seem to be able to accept that some people will just disagree with them, and that excessive back-and-forth doesn't actually do any good whatsoever. So, I want to spell it out abundantly clear to Adamant1 - this stops here and now. Don't reply to this or any other thread in this discussion. If you're motivated to write a lengthy post about how this is a tragic miscarriage of justice, don't. If you want to speculate the motives of those supporting a block, don't. In fact, I'm tempted to put the block in myself if you reply to this comment in any way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm striking the support for a block just for the minute, because the latest discussion with Adamant1 on my talk page is conciliatory and not abusive. So I will take Reyk's comments above in good faith and trust that staring being kicked off the site has jogged him enough to realise something has to change. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support Indef Block for consistent disruptive behavior including Bludgeoning. They truly need a break from editing. He/she seems unable to stop disruptive behavior and seems unconcerned about conferring with others. He/she seems more interested in trolling than contributing to the project. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• I thought to close this, but I think it would be better to leave a comment instead. I do not see consensus for an community ban, which a community-imposed indefinite block constitutes. I agree with this assessment, but disagree with the warning proposed by others who oppose the ban. Adamant was given a community warning two weeks ago which did not prevent this situation, and while I would like to assume good faith I simply do not believe we can trust that this will resolve on its own with another warning. I believe the best course is to use our existing tools. Given the previous two week block and recent warning, I think a finite block of longer duration is within our typical scheme and a proportional response; I would suggest two months but would support up to six. A finite block serves as a functional warning included in the block log and guarantees that disruption will be stopped without relying on Adamant's word (which has failed us previously). If those advocating for a warning are correct that Adamant has already seen the need to change, then Adamant can return in two months and demonstrate that reform without taking up the community's time in an unban request. If not, they can be quickly reblocked and for a longer duration (including indef) as part of the escalating system of blocks without need for an extensive discussion. I think this is a functional compromise solution. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Per my discussion with Hammersoft below, I'm willing to accept this closing without a block. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• I supported an indef above, but I agree with Wugapodes's proposal wholeheartedly. There's real disruption here that needs to stop, but that doesn't require treating this user as irredeemable. Perhaps a lengthier block will stimulate real change; if it doesn't, that will make the case for an indef/cban all the clearer. A finite block, in my view, minimizes drama and strikes a reasonable balance between deterring disruption and allowing this user to make constructive contributions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Opppose While Adamant1's conduct leaves much to be desired, they have showed that they realize that they need to change their behavior, and I think that they should be given a final chance before a community ban.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef Fram has been right throughout this thread. This has gone on way too long. Adamant1 spends half his time here prioritizing snarky and aggressive commentating over constructive cooperative. Just because he briefly backs down under threat of imminent sanctions doesn't change the long-term problem we have experienced.Talrolande (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support non-indef block I'm convinced from the further discussion that an indef is not needed. I think there still is cause for a block; if there is a block it must be substantially longer than the previous 2-week block for similar behavior and shouldn't be longer than the WP:SO 6 months. If some experienced editors are willing to mentor here I'm not strongly opposed to just issuing a "final warning" with specific discouragement from certain types of edits. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Compromise

• "Oppose indef", Support block as functional compromise solution: Per Wugapodes comments but non-!vote, also supported by Extraordinary Writ. The logic of such a compromise for disruptive behavior, certainly seems within the communities options, over just banning or a stalemate resulting in no consensus for an indef. The subject has commented that 6 months would be agreeable. Whatever term the "customary next step", at the discretion of the closing admin, should not be argumentative. I think it would be ideal, as a "FINAL WARNING", to include the notations that future disruptions including badgering and bludgeoning are considered tendentious editing and will result in a determination of "clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". Please don't unnecessarily burden ArbCom and extend this even further. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose compromise; blocks are not punitive. It's been more than a week since Adamant1 has done anything that would warrant a block. No current disruption is happening to the project. I disagree with Wugapodes that a block log entry serves as a functional warning. It doesn't. This thread most emphatically does. If Adamant1 isn't aware of the very serious concern the community has with regards to their editing after four separate threads (including this one) regarding their behavior, a block isn't going to somehow bring it home to them that we're serious now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Functional for responding administrators if not Adamant. If an admin gets a report about this user and looks at the block log they'll see a two week block from December but will likely miss the previous warning or the result of this thread. That contributes to the difficulty of resolving long-term problems as responses may be slower or disproportionate given the limited information at hand when responding. I agree that blocks should not be punitive, but per the blocking policy blocks serve to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior". This is a fine line, but I didn't propose the block as punishment; I genuinely believe it will be effective in preventing likely disruption. Adamant was most recently warned two weeks ago, and the behavior has apparently been going on for months. Despite the short reprieve I am wary of just trusting that disruption will not happen again in the near future. If they didn't get how serious our concerns were after the previous block or after the previous three threads, why should I believe this thread will be the one to drive it home? I'd be happy if I were wrong, but I feel like the community needs to do something more than give another finger wagging if we're going to keep from having another thread in a few weeks or months. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I have Adamant1's talk page watchlisted now. If a block comes down for disruption in the future, I will likely start a thread here on this board to request a community ban. Sure, a well-intentioned admin might miss the prior discussions regarding the behavior. But, a block isn't a ban. An administrator might block indefinitely, but it's still not a community ban. The next step is a community ban request, and having a longer block log isn't going to change that. The only thing it might do is change who initiates the community ban request. We had something similar happen recently with Francis Schonken where an indefinite block was turned into a community ban (see [43]). While a non-block conclusion of this thread would seem to be finger wagging as you say, I don't think it is. I think Adamant1 understands they are standing on razor thin ice at this point, and any deviation from good conduct will lead to a ban. If Adamant1 doesn't understand this, we'll be back here anyway, even if they are blocked indefinitely. So, the outcome is the same regardless and doesn't hinge on whether we block now or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
      • If you trust Adamant has learned and are prepared to handle any disruption in the near future, then I'm fine letting this close without a block. Your advocacy and user talk watching make me more willing to take the risk, so here's hoping you're right. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
        • To be clear; I'm not really advocating for Adamant1. I said in the last behavior thread about them that we'd be here again, and here we are again. I don't have significant hope that we won't here again. But, their behavior over the last week gives me a tiny bit of hope. We'll see. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Next Stop May Be ArbCom

The Arbitration Committee has the responsibility of judging disputes that the community is unable to resolve. It appears that this thread probably will not result in an indefinite block or a site ban. It may result in a final warning, and we know that final warnings are not always final. If this thread is closed inconclusively, the next issue may reasonably be filed as a Request for Arbitration rather than here, and User:Adamant1 should be aware that such a case is likely to result in an ArbCom ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• We haven't tried a longer block, we haven't tried a voluntary restriction, we haven't tried a topic ban, we haven't tried a namespace restriction... there's an awful lot in the scope of ANI before going to ArbCom. If there's no appetite for any of them here, that just means there's not consensus about whether there's disruption sufficient for one of those remedies, not that disruption is so great that it must go to ArbCom. I do not see this as a case along the lines of an "unblockable". That said, I think a closing admin could find consensus for any of several options above. If nothing else, Adamant said he'd agree to a voluntary restriction on deletion-related discussions. Maybe the warning plus documenting the voluntary restriction works for now (one of those "if nobody's very happy, maybe it's the best outcome" deals). For my part, I just hate to see community bans imposed in cases like this before trying less severe interventions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to point out (as I did on the user's talk page) that Adamant1 seems to have stopped the reflexive responses and bludgeoning, for the moment, at least. Assuming they are not simply otherwise occupied, or some such, this is a positive development. Cheers, all, and happy Wednesday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree that ArbCom will be the next step. There isn't a complex issue here of wondering whether Adamant1 has been disruptive and insulting. I think we can all agree that's happened. The issue is whether to ban them from the project or not. Whether ArbCom votes to do that or we do, it's still a portion of the community deciding that. We don't need a months long case to go over the particulars of this all over again to arrive at the conclusion we've already arrived at of Adamant1's disruption. I warned above that Adamant1's next misstep would be the end. It will be, and ArbCom doesn't have to be involved. I concur with Rhododendrites and Dumuzid. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• IMO we should refrain from meta-commentary and predictions of the future while threads like this are still open. The risk of speculating about how this will be closed or what will happen after it's closed or what arbcom would do is that these predictions may be incorrect. The harm is taking up editor time by asking people to read commentary that just doesn't help resolve the current issue, and if anything, distracts from or even unintentionally undermines resolution efforts by declaring the matter unresolved or unresolvable. I'm hopeful that however this closes, it will fix the issues, and there won't be an arbcom case or even another ANI thread or any unilateral admin action in the future. If any of those things come to pass, it'll be sad, but I see no point in speculating about that. Let's focus on what to do here and now in this thread: there are several proposals on the table. Also, this seems a good time to say the point of blocks, bans, and all other sanctions isn't to punish editors, or to reform editors, it's to stop disruption. Is there ongoing disruption, y/n? What is the least intrusive thing we can do to stop it? These are the relevant questions. Levivich 16:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Competence is required too. Without respect and appreciation for the fact that Wikipedia works through collaboration and consensus building, some members of the peanut gallery will often lose sight of the relevant questions. Although a mop can be used as a stick to bash someone, that doesn't mean it automatically should be. I too don't see any evidence that the community is unable to resolve this incident; rather, it is clear that the community is calmly and carefully considering if there is a necessity to take a nuclear option when other avenues have not been exhausted, or if the cost/benefit ratio is proportionate, along with other important policy arguments. That is working just as it is meant to and the discussion has not concluded. It seems counterproductive to: (1) create a subheading which speculates on what will happen after this incident thread is closed even though it has not been closed; (2) promote the last resort of Wikipedia dispute resolution despite the fact that this thread is still in progress in an early stage of dispute resolution and/or merely because the community isn't unanimous about a ban at this time; (3) prejudge the effectiveness of a warning or admonishment being used as a remedy by the community; (4) suggest to the subject of this discussion that a request for arbitration is likely to result in them being banned - and that too, without having any knowledge of what evidence, response submissions or discussion will occur between the subject and arbcom in the specific case. Frequently making comments without fully informing one's self comes at a cost. Approaching issues like Rod, Dumuzid, Hammersoft and Levivich have suggested in their feedback would be more constructive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to expand on this (not disagreeing with you); if (if) a case about this is accepted at ArbCom, ArbCom would once again violate WP:DR in taking it before it was ready to go to them. They've done that before though, and don't seem to show any particular remorse in violating that policy. Further, if they did accept it, they would almost certainly name the case "Adamant1". I've long written about this, but the cognitive anchoring of the case would mean that Adamant1 would not get a fair trial (among other reasons why that is impossible) and would almost certainly be banned from the project. The community can handle this, and we are handling it. I think the lack of unanimity at this point isn't a sign that we're incapable of handling it. Rather, there isn't a need to take the nuclear option at this point. If this comes up again, I think the community will find consensus to implement at community ban. No ArbCom is needed (nor, in my opinion, wanted given how abusive they are). --Hammersoft (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that there are still other avenues of dispute resolution that could be tried before ArbCom. Also, I want to mention that this editor has been discussed ad nauseum in what - 4 different threads? - including this one. So, I have to agree with Rhododendrites - a closing Admin might be able to extract an acceptable consensus on a sanction from the above suggestions. On the other hand, hopefully this isn't being too heavy handed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Bludgeoning and WP:OWN by Andrew Lancaster

For quite some time now, user:Andrew Lancaster has been bludgeoning discussions at talk:Germanic peoples and talk:Goths, posting huge walls of text and driving away most editors.

• At talk:Germanic peoples, he's added 44.2% of the edits and 56.3% of the text. The next closest editor, Krakkos, has added only 9.3% of edits and 16.6% of text.
• The disparity at talk:Goths is even starker. There Andrew Lancaster has made over 50% of the edits on the talk page and added 61% of the text. For perspective, the next closest editor is Krakkos, who's added only about 17% of the edits and added only 23.1% of the text.
• This has been a long term problem, beginning probably about a year ago. It involves endless repetitive discussions in which almost everyone disagrees with Andrew, but he somehow gets his way. See the discussions and RFCs about "what the article is about" whenever anyone else starts editing: Talk:Goths/Archive 10#Review of new proposal by Krakkos 31 March 2021, Talk:Goths/Archive 11#RfC on re-focusing the lead, Talk:Goths#RFC on article focus Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 9#Revisiting the article topic controversy, Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 11#Future of the article talk:Germanic peoples#Structure ideas again, Talk:Germanic peoples#the question of what this article is about. (I've probably missed some)
• The neutrality of Andrew's POV and the direction he has pushed the article has also been a topic, resulting in Bloodofox tagging Germanic peoples for neutrality [44] and eventually me reverting back to a version before Andrew had made his changes, as had been repeatedly suggested on the talk page. This has been a long-term issue that's been brought up numerous times before, see Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 11#Drastic and highly problematic edit to the lead, Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 13#Agenda Anyone, Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 15#Rewrite and NPOV as just a few of the more explicit examples.

Recently, Carlstak and myself have repeatedly reached out to Andrew to stop bludgeoning the process, but to no avail, (see [45], [46]). The issue of Andrew's wp:WALLSOFTEXT was also brought up by other editors, such as Bloodofox [47]. It is my belief that Andrew is at this point the main obstacle to ever getting anything done on the article, that he has some serious wp:OWN issues on the topic of early Germanic peoples. He's driving away other editors who simply don't want to deal with him - including myself, for a long while. I think that a topic ban is most probably in order.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors @Berig, Obenritter, Alcaios, Ealdgyth, Srnec, Avilich, Dynasteria, Yngvadottir, Austronesier, SMcCandlish, North8000, Krakkos, Bloodofox, and Carlstak:, my apologies if I missed anyone.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I can only concur with what Ermenrich writes above. It is a clear case of WP:OWN, by an editor who appears to have developed a method for bludgeoning away other editors. I don't know how many competent editors he has pushed away from these articles, but I am one of the editors who don't feel it is worth it to engage in interminable discussions.--Berig (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I also concur. Unfortunately, Ermenrich's assessment is exactly what I have witnessed. Other editors have been very patient with Andrew but this has been going on for far too long. As editors, we can disagree on this or that—that's perfectly natural—but Andrew's consistent and extensive bludgeoning is a real problem. He's well aware of what he's doing. Several editors have mentioned it to him, including myself. At this point it's difficult to assume good faith about his approach. I think a topic ban is the only solution here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I must concur based on my observations as well. Andrew's lengthy and incessant walls of Talk Page discourse are simply too mentally exhausting for most editors, myself included. A topic ban seems the right solution in this case, as he is a valuable contributor otherwise. He simply cannot get out of his own way on this particular subject arena.--Obenritter (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• My knowledge of the situation is from being a medium-close observer of the Goth article for almost 4 months and just a quick glance at the Germanic peoples article when I got the ping for this ANI, so I'm talking mostly about the Goth article. As a preface, on the Goths article, the situation is unusual. There are only minor differences of opinion there; the biggest challenge is that they are dealing with huge amounts of material there on a complex, multi-faceted topic and Andrew has been trying to use a very cautious Wikipedian process (including large drafts) to move it forward. And it's still mired down, again, with no real disputes. IMO partially because the main person trying to move it forward, Andrew has been too cautious and too thorough in his approach. And I think that there have been no complaints about his behavior. In short, the hard work on the article which Ermenrich noted should be cause to give Andrew a barnster not an ANI post. That said, the sheer quantity and complexity of material being discussed and the size and complexity of Andrew's proposals certainly is an in-advertant barrier for entry and participation; this could be a source of frustration including for Ermenrich, Berig, Obenritter and others. It needs a tough simplifier-facillitator for the conversation. I'd be willing to try to be that at the Goth article for 1-2 months if they wanted me. IMO there is no behavioral problem there.North8000 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm convinced that Andrew is acting in good faith, but this is true that those walls of text on talk pages are often exhausting. You should try to be more concise in your answers, or perhaps to open a blog if you like writing lengthy posts about Germanic studies. Alcaios (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that the contributions of Andrew Lancaster in the talk page come in a length and speed that makes it hard to keep up with the discussion. Some editors react less voluminously, but just as quick. What happens is that people like me who prefer to read 100 pages of good sources first before writing a single paragraph in both mainspace and talkspace will just withdraw (and read sources instead). It is my dearest wish that Andrew Lancaster could "come to senses" without measures like TBAN, because I consider his input very valuable in principle. There's bludgeoning and there's bludgeoning: some people do senseless rants and rambling, but Andrew Lancaster talk contributions always convey a message; unfortunately however, too often repetitive, little to the point, and with a seeming intent to "convince" people instead of accepting each of our POVs as they are. –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Lancaster is certainly capable of contributing in a constructive way, but his extremely verbose talkpage commentary is a real obstacle for other editors who want to work on the Germanic peoples article. Whether he intends to be obstructive or not, his unending objections and suggestions wear out other editors who've been part of the conversation, and scare away knowledgable editors who would like to contribute but don't want to deal with the morass of commentary, most of it generated by Andrew Lancaster. His general response to admonitions to be more concise is to add another wall of text in response. Our crew of subject experts can't get anywhere because of his obtuse behavior, and one does begin to wonder after a while if his obstructionism is deliberate. I support a topic ban; he can contribute more productively on other articles—he's absolutely an impediment to progress on this one. Carlstak (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• My personal experience has been that the length and frequency of Andrew Lancaster's posts have been off-putting and something of an obstruction to further contributions. My central objection may not be shared by others, that too great a reliance on the "consensus" of recognized academicians is not a strategy for arriving at the truth as best we can know it. But the demand for a consensus seems particularly to be AL's platform for deciding the entire thrust of the article. This shuts out divergent opinion through exercising authority by proxy. "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes." Similarly, it's who chooses which scholar to give legitimacy to that determines which version of the truth is being put out there to the inquiring public. OTOH, I have found Andrew's contributions to be sincere and knowledgeable. Dynasteria (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Belatedly, yes, I agree. Andrew Lancaster is undoubtedly editing in good faith at both Talk:Goths and Talk:Germanic peoples, but his rigidity and aspects of his manner of argument—invoking names of scholars in a sometimes almost talismanic way, voluminous posts including at Talk:Goths a seemingly unending series of requests for comment, and sometimes personalization of discussion—caused me to walk away from Talk:Goths and I have several times been on the brink of doing the same at Talk:Germanic peoples. I am aware both that people of different academic backgrounds can have different assumptions, and that people can have very different reactions to the same style of argument. But for example I find this edit unduly personalizes the discussion, moreso toward Berig and Krakkos than me, while responding to my concerns over sources in a manner that I do find redolent of article ownership, hoping I don't mean he should rehash all the earlier discussions on the page. There and elsewhere, I consider his reference to "old and low-quality sources which equated large language families with ethnicity" to be reductionist. I'm not sure he realizes that such responses are intimidating; I'm pretty sure some would not find them so, but I was put off. At Talk:Germanic peoples, I tried to meet his argument partway by demonstrating awareness of the problematic history of the field under the Nazis (I thought it might as well be me taking the "Godwin" charge rather than someone else), and I pointed out what seemed to me to be a crucial difference of assumptions about the range of the article. Andrew Lancaster didn't bludgeon that discussion as much, and also came to my talk page and I think thought about what I said in response. But Ealdgyth stepped in at the article talk page as a neutral arbiter, and is both a highly experienced editor (and administrator) and a fine medievalist, and I do not think this article section where he interacts with her is polite. (@North8000: I think this illustrates the difference of perception; but I also want to stress that at least one highly qualified person has tried.) Andrew Lancaster rewrote the Germanic peoples article, and I can understand he feels invested in it and it must be hard to see agreement being reached on the talk page to start over with a version of the article prior to that rewrite. I can see why he found it impossible to stay away after I mentioned him on the talk page. As I say, he is undoubtedly editing in good faith. But someone can mean well and yet be intimidating and overly concerned with their own viewpoint and their own rights and insufficiently cognizant of others' rights or open to consideration of their points of view. And perhaps another factor is that this editor's style in the articles, particularly Germanic peoples, is long-winded and not very clear, similar to the style of the "walls of text" they have usually posted on the talk pages. (I am of course open to the same accusations, both with regard to argument and to length and lack of clarity in writing.) Yngvadottir (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reaction. IMHO the posts of Ermenrich and Carlstak are misleading and overdramatized, written when annoyed, though obviously I am not perfect, and can improve. We all have our different skill sets. But Goths is basically frozen and should have strange stats due to the admin decision pushing the main editors to RFC before any edit. The situation has changed again totally on Germanic peoples, so it is a bad time to judge it based on its past. Ermenrich has totally rewritten the article. No one blocked that or anything else. As can be seen in the calmer reactions above the only way I “block” or “own” discussions is by analyzing the pesky complexities which come from published sources. I find the advice of North, Austronesier, Alcaios, and Yngvadottir (and Ealdgyth) very useful and will try to follow it. Much less helpful, Carlstak writes increasingly about their impression of my character, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, but almost never about content and sources. Ermenrich has been an important on-and-off editor who was (like Austronesier and Srnec) an advisor to me when I drafted a new version in early 2020. That drafting period had a big impact on my talk page statistics. I had the time and energy to do it, and no one was stopping any imaginary team of experts from contributing more. That a rewrite was needed at that time was not controversial after several months of bold editing created a mess, and there were also RFCs which guided my work, and then later guided the way I answered complaints by visitors. I have often been involved in discussions about the article scope because that exact question has always been controversial on this article, long before I got involved. NOTE. The idea that the article structure was holding us up, and that we should return to the version of July 2019, which was NOT the version prior to mine but one from a half year earlier, was a recent proposal of Austronesier, and Ermenrich went and did it soon after. Now that Ermenrich has totally rewritten the article, the focus of POV complaints from editors with heterodox positions won’t be me anymore and that will naturally decrease calls upon me. As Dynasteria points out, I’ve been associated with the “POV” of using mainstream scholars, and in such discussions Ermenrich has often appeared as someone supporting my explanations. Why is Ermenrich now focussing mainly on discussions which happened in the past, which Ermenrich supported in the past, and which are now likely to stop naturally? IMHO the trigger has been normal BRD editing disagreements which should be resolvable and are not described as part of the complaint above. So we are in a new phase on this article, and we are all still adapting to it. A critical review of these articles would show a wide range of human imperfections, and no super heroes. Now is not a good time to be over-dramatizing or trying to exclude editors who've spent the last year looking at the sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the singling out of Andrew Lancaster as the problem here. Here's some findings and comments to explain why.

1. I'm new to this topic and so went to take a look at the article Germanic peoples. The first thing I notice as a reader is that it has two banner tags at the top: {{POV}} and {{cleanup rewrite}}. These indicate that these issues will be explained on the talk page but it's not obvious on the talk page which of the many sections relate to these tags.
2. Looking at the history of those tags, we find that they were placed on 8 July 2021 by bloodofox. On that day, Bloodofox posted 32 times on the article's talk page but I can't find any posts which clearly explain or even mention these tags.
3. The main section which bloofofox started on the talk page was instead a proposal to split the article. This is quite a radical suggestion but the process did not fully conform to the process described at WP:SPLIT. In particular, a {{split}} template was not placed on the article to notify the readership.
4. It seems evident that Andrew Lancaster is not the only editor who is very active in this topic and so generating actions and discussions which are difficult to follow and keep up with. If you look at the article history, you can see a flurry of recent edits by other editors – many edits being made on the same day.
5. In this situation of intense activity, it will naturally be difficult for editors to agree or even follow the details. WP:FAIT has a ruling from arbcom which states that "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." So, we should be expecting lots of discussion in such a case. Insofar as Andrew Lancaster is engaging in lots of discussion then he's doing the right thing.
6. To resolve this complex dispute, the editors should be following our processes closely and carefully – processes such as WP:SPLIT and WP:RFC. If there isn't a clear process then naturally the result will be chaos and confusion. The onus is on all editors to do this, not just one of them.
7. It's not clear that any admin action is required yet. Perhaps editors need to slow down a bit and so a WP:1RR regime might be appropriate.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Just on that last bullet, according to me we are in a new situation and actually the high volume is mainly positive right now. (Many of Ermenrich's examples are from the past and quite different situations.) I think we'd all like Ermenrich to continue re-writing the article, and 1R would mainly affect them right now (or it might make others scared to contribute). In the background, there is a chance this article scope topic might hit a wall again. (The fact it got mentioned by me - "hand wringing" - is apparently what frustrated Ermenrich and led to this case.) But Ermenrich's idea of editing for a while and then reviewing this probably makes the most sense so far. I think other editors concerned in how to eventually handle this probably agree. See Austronesier and Srnec here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing complex about this situation at all. All we have to do is report on what scholars say. Without POV-pushing, that's quite easy. Anyone can produce a straw poll at any time. The issue here is Andrew Lancaster's constant WP:BLUDGEON tactics to get his way and that's not going to stop unless someone does something about it. Remove Andrew Lancaster from the picture and these articles will be FA-quality in no time. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm an uninvolved observer, here on this page for different business, but I had a look at the Germanic peoples page, and now I wonder what is going on here. Everybody seems to agree that AL is a good-faith editor with lots of merits. As far as I understand the accusations thrown at him consist mostly of a) slowing down the process by insisting on more discussion, and b) being wordy. These two things are thrown together into a WP:OWN violation, and now based on this people here are getting out of their way with demands for topic bans for the pages named and even every other page having the word German in them. Have you actually looked at the page WP:OWN? Nobody there makes a suggestion of responding with topic bans, which I consider one of the harshest sanctions available on Wikipedia, amounting to a block for those people where the topic ban basically covers the area of main expertise. Okay, I can talk easily here, as I'm not affected by AL's actions, but surely there must be other ways of moving the article forward than banning a good-faith editor in good standing and undoubted expertise. Please don't go this way. LandLing 11:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite topic ban on anything and everything even remotely related to any Germanic people, Goths and all of their languages

I have had many long and always fruitless discussions with Andrew Lancaster on those topics, over a long period of time, opposing his blatant POV, including basing articles almost entirely on an utterly fringe source with a self-declared agenda: removing the Germanic peoples and their languages, and even the word Germanic, from history. Describing his tactics as bludgeoning is spot-on, because that's what he's doing, in an attempt to drive all other editors away from all articles that has anything to do with Germanic, so that he can rewrite them all to fit in with his fantasy world. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Observation. As far as I can tell my "POV" on various related topics (which has developed as I've learned and read, because it is basically source-based) has, over the last year or more, generally been quite close, at least as far as what we think WP should say, to those of Ermenrich, Austronesier, Alcaios, and Srnec. That makes it indeed ironic that Ermenrich threw POV in the above complaint, but could only find examples where Ermenrich was also in the same discussion, but agreeing with me. Editors on Germanic topics attract a lot of intimidating anger and aggression from editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race, who academics are denying the existence of because they are dominated by ideologies and political correctness. I don't believe any version of the Germanic peoples article will ever avoid problems from that direction. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Andrew Lancaster has resisted constructive criticism. I truly offer this as friendly advice: The rule is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Andrew, stop defending yourself. Once again I point out the potential danger of mainstream "consensus" opinions. As an American I can assure you that fear of the tyranny of the majority is a bedrock principal for any free institution or government. Or I could sum it up with this query: Is it mainstream or is it groupthink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria (talk • contribs) 11:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tom's characterisation of certain sources as "utterly fringe" is absurd. Srnec (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Tom's proposal seems intemperate but is not supported by solid evidence such as diffs. Note that this is their first edit in three months. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It would be a travesty to sanction an editor for working hard on articles in a very Wikipedian fashion. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Observation. I'm sure Thomas.W doesn't need my help defending his position, but to keep this discussion intellectually honest I would point out to Srnec that saying that someone's characterization is "absurd" goes nowhere to refute his argument. You actually have to formulate an argument of your own. To Andrew Davidson, the solid evidence has been offered by many others, above. It is, moreover, completely irrelevant how long it has been since someone edited. A person with a brain and the ability to think has the right to contribute. To North8000, the point has been made repeatedly that Andrew Lancaster has worked much too hard to the point of being an obstructionist and very definitely not in a Wikipedian fashion. But I support the direction of your question (see below). Dynasteria (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I managed to collaborate with Andrew on several topics related to Germani Cisrenani and Gallic-Germanic tribes of Gallia Belgica (eg. Atuatuci, Eburones, Caeroesi, etc.). Andrew just needs to be reassured that we're not going to write articles inspired by the essentialist vision of 19th-century scholars, and I'm sure that he's going to make efforts about the concision of his messages on talk pages. Alcaios (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Alcaios, it's not clear to me what that offer might consist of. "I will be reasonable and seek compromise as long as you meet my demands." (?) Dynasteria (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

My own main concern at the moment is that Andrew continues to deny that he's doing anything wrong. I don't think that speaks to him limiting his contributions.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria: which demands am I making to Ermenrich who brought this case here? @Ermenrich: according to Alcaios above my sin is writing without concision. Yngvadottir, in contrast, thinks some of my recent concise posts were impolite, and she has a point. All such feedback is constructive and I certainly admit to such imperfections in my writing style and will keep trying to improve because after all life is more fun that way. Of course it is difficult to live up to the standards of other editors on Germanic peoples though, in terms of concision and politeness. To be clear: do you think the talk page of Germanic peoples shows editors who are all concise and polite?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:, my remark was in reference to Alcaios's statement that you need "to be reassured that we're not going to write articles inspired by the essentialist vision of 19th-century scholars" in order, apparently, to limit your Talk page messages. This, however, is the Hobson's choice you've been offering all along. Also, since you asked, the question is definitely not what demands you are making of Ermenrich, the issues are those that have been laid out by concerned editors here and elsewhere. Primarily, from what I understand, that you commandeer the article itself and use the Talk page to enforce your POV. Is that not what is happening? Dynasteria (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't really follow what you are saying. I think what Alcaios was saying, rightly, is that my concerns tend to be reasonable by the standards of most editors (or at least Alcaios) and so the situation is fine if we just all work together. (Of course, Alcaios is assuming most editors will not be insisting on 19th century essentialism. That might be an issue for you?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. An indefinite TBAN is inappropriate, and I won't support any measures based on the reasons given in this sub-proposal. I don't see the "self-declared agenda", the use a "fringe source", the "fantasy world", and I don't believe his idiosyncrasies are "tactics". –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Very strong support, recommend blocking. Enough is enough—I have yet to see any benefit's to this guy's editing, which is indeed POV-fixated and generally poor in these areas. I've witnessed him aggressively pushing extreme positions into the article whenever given the chance and stonewalling anyone who dares attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. These articles have plenty of individuals with formal backgrounds relevant to these topics working on them—we don't need the constant bludgeoning and half-baked POV-pushing. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Given what @Yngvadottir: has highlighted above, I now recommend blocking Andrew's account entirely. That is outragous. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Inclining support. Bludgeoning is on display here at AN/I, whether Andrew Lancaster defines it that way or not. I believe the editor knows that dominating a discussion by posting at undue length and in response to everything anyone says, and being dismissive in short posts, are both uncivil and potentially intimidating, and that drawing attention to the former as a problem is not an endorsement of the latter. Personalization and emotionalism while accusing others of being emotional are also on display here: initial response at this AN/I: "As can be seen in the calmer reactions above the only way I 'block' or 'own' discussions is by analyzing the pesky complexities which come from published sources."; "Now is not a good time to be over-dramatizing"; response to Ermenrich below: "getting irate"; "Angry people are attacking me, including now you."; "anti-academic battlers"; "So you are pretending YOU are calm and not triggered". Yet as seen in in a talk-page diff that I linked above, he's quick to take offense when asked why he is himself emotional on these topics. However, I would not have endorsed such a hefty penalty as a topic ban, except that I find his response to Thomas.W's proposal above to be quite frankly shocking. "Editors on Germanic topics attract a lot of intimidating anger and aggression from editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race, who academics are denying the existence of because they are dominated by ideologies and political correctness." Andrew Lancaster sees himself as a gatekeeper and implies that those who disagree with him (he has provided much evidence on this page of his view that the scholarly mainstream is what he defines it as, for example: "I've been associated with the 'POV' of using mainstream scholars" from a diff I have linked) are tainted with racism. This is classic WP:OWN and WP:RGW, fellow editors do not have to accept such slurs for disagreeing with Andrew Lancaster or anyone else, and I am disappointed that anyone here is still defending his argument tactics after reading that. If he does not apologize and take back the implied accusation against fellow editors, I frankly advocate a block, not a topic ban. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Changed to Support, see below. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of this—that is outrageous and absolutely unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This ANI thread has certainly brought out the worst in Andrew, but a different user recently posted to the article talk page a Germans-as-victims screed under the heading "Let my people go" and complained that "white supremacist" was an offensive label. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec:: I am that "different user". You are welcome to your own opinion but I do not have to accept your slurs as examples of the "worst" in someone. My thread was not some superfluous "Germans-as-victims screed" and it is un-Wikipedian behavior to be dismissive toward me. Primarily, though, the fact that I consider "white supremacist" to be a racist term, because it is, is outside your province of review. If you are defending the use, then you are guilty of a racist (or is it political) attack on me. You know nothing about me, do you? Dynasteria (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Other than that you advocate for voluntary amnesia about the catastrophe that was 20th-century German history, no, nothing. EEng 14:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I certainly do not claim to be immune to emotion, or perfect in any way, but IMHO the reality of what other editors have been doing to ratchet up the emotions is relevant to this case and needs to be considered. Several of the editors here really have been part of a systematic push around Wikipedia to delete reference to specific scholars who they claim to have an agenda to "remove the Germanic peoples from history", and this programme has included enormous amounts of ad hominem and incivility. It does seem that Bloodofox's recent approach of claiming that I must resent linguists, and that historians I cite are hardly ever cited in academia, has now impacted upon the relationship between Ermenrich and myself. Thomas.W does not appear to be a very active editor but has pursued me whenever possible since early 2020. For several months in 2020 basically every edit of Thomas.W had one theme. I suppose I am damned if I mention this, and damned if I don't. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Also I did not mention "racism" but referred to the theory that there is a way of biologically or genetically defining who is and/or was Germanic. A weak version of the idea still appears in the article, and defences of this WP:SYNTH idea undeniably appear throughout the talk page histories, attached to specific Wikipedians and their long-term positions on other issues, including arguments against various academics. I don't think it can be denied that this topic is an intrinsic part of why this ANI case exists now. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, Oh man, oh man. I'm not about to respond directly to anything Andrew Lancaster says on this page, otherwise, we're playing into his game, his usual technique, whether conscious or not (it doesn't matter which—same effect, and of course he can see the results—a royal clusterfuck). Look at his responses, classic bludgeoning— responding to every criticism—he's doing it right here in front of everyone, as Yngvadottir says above, because he can't help himself. Andrew still thinks there's nothing wrong with his excessive commentary on and bludgeoning of the talk pages of "Germanic peoples" and "Goths", and it's naive to think he'll change his style of obfuscation on these talk pages. I've given him the benefit of the doubt for too long, and now again he climbs up on his cross of victimhood, and dismisses criticism of his behavior, which seems rather arrogant. I say, stop engaging with him, it feeds what strikes me as something pathological. Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning support now myself but also noting there is an alternative proposal below that may thread the needle between retaining retaining the value of Andrew's contributions while restraining any disruption from their ebullient mode of contribution in this area. I've been following this thread since it was first posted a couple of days ago, but taking the time to review the context in detail before supplying my own take on the issues of the talk page. Initially, I felt a sanction such as a TBAN would be excessive for a number of reasons: it's self evident that the two articles in question here cover deeply nuanced topics and must summarize a complicated tangle of issues and sources which incorporate both empirical research and more subjective faire. So a discussion of this topic is bound to involve a fair deal of heavy posts and some eye-straining debate. And if a given editor is predisposed towards verbosity, that could combine with complex issue to produce particularly lengthy arguments, even where bludgeoning was definitely not the intent. Furthermore, looking at some of those particularized arguments, I'm often finding that in some of the situations where Andrew is making their more voluminous contributions, they are doing so in service of a good argument on a complex issue.

However, all of that said, the more I have reviewed the forgoing discussion on the talk pages, the more my concerns have grown and the more I understand the complaints raised here by numerous other editors in those spaces--sometimes even when I disagree with their content/policy read. Andrew definitely needs to internalize some lessons here regarding the fact that having the right position is sometimes insufficient if you can't make your argument in the right way. Which should not be construed as me saying they are overwhelmingly right: I hasten to add that because I am concerned Andrew will otherwise interpret this observation (as they seem to have other comments of partial support above) as amounting to evidence that their problems are mostly due to the complicated position they have been put it.

And ultimately, that is the biggest source of concern here for me: there is a pretty monumental amount of WP:IDHT going on in this thread and even if we let Andrew off without substantial sanction in this case, it'll only be to delay addressing the issue until another day if he does not come to grips with the fact that there are legitimate concerns about his approach here. Above and bellow, I see a lot of posts where he makes a wise tactical decision to admit that his approach isn't perfect, but then spends three or four times as much time addressing why he is really correct in various particulars. That's the approach to mea culpa of someone who has a lot of experience being diplomatic and demonstrating openness to discussion to a certain level, but who really isn't receiving the message about how much their approach needs to change in toto.

Andrew, to speak to you directly now, the sheer volume of feedback you have received about problems with your approach on those talk pages cannot be completely rationalized away as a product of the context, even if we were to assume (as you definitely should not) that you were right about every content question and simply were stuck with the difficult situation of arguing against superior numbers on a complex topic. I do think that North8000's approach below may be the way to go here--or that we should at least try this half-step first--but if you don't make real efforts to recognize and address some very much real shortcomings in your approach to how discussion must proceed in the constraints of this project, I'll be surprised if the topic ban isn't imposed the next time this discussion lands here, if it has to come to that. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: to be honest that all sounds reasonable. I have said from the beginning that I do take some of the complaints on board, where that it logically possible. Some of the clearest and most useful advice comes from the same editors who actually cite sources such as Alcaios, and Austronesier. It is literally impossible to take all the criticism seriously because there are big differences between the different types of opposition against me. For example, Ermenrich included a POV aspect in the complaint citing an argument with Bloodofox. Bloodofox has one big issue and that is that I included citations from the academic author Walter Goffart in the 2020 version of Germanic peoples. If you look at my drafting page for that 2020 version, Ermenrich was one of the contributors suggesting Goffart quotations, and in the very examples cited above, Ermenrich was also involved, arguing against Bloodofox! It is like I said, the talk page is full of human imperfection. Was there an increasing problem or new problem though? No, there is a BETTER situation on the article. This case was triggered by a specific content discussion which is not part of any long term debate that I can see. (But maybe I don't fully understand Ermenrich yet on that. I would like to though.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I am not in a position to debate with you whether the article talk page is in a better place now than it has been in recent time: that may very well be and you know the article better than I, so let's just take that assessment at face value for the purposes of the moment. The important thing is that you recognize that whatever the state of the articles, a large number of your fellow editors and community members here are expressing a need to have you hear something that is pretty consistent in at least some details. Given the tone of feedback at this juncture, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that hearing it might be vital to staying involved on these articles. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I read Andrew's initial response to me above, then went away to give him a chance to reflect on the need for an apology. Instead I find not the tiniest shred of regret for implying that any and all who disagree with his position represent a racist position, not even an admission that he may have phrased his point overly broadly. Instead he doubled down on it initially: "Several of the editors here really have been part of a systematic push around Wikipedia to delete reference to specific scholars who they claim to have an agenda to 'remove the Germanic peoples from history'", and redoubled the aspersion in a later addition to the same comment: "Also I did not mention 'racism' but referred to the theory that there is a way of biologically or genetically defining who is and/or was Germanic. A weak version of the idea still appears in the article, and defences of this WP:SYNTH idea undeniably appear throughout the talk page histories, attached to specific Wikipedians and their long-term positions on other issues, including arguments against various academics." He has continued to attack other editors here on AN/I, accusing them of being emotional and of creating the problem by attacking him; for example to Ermenrich below: "There is too much exaggeration and dramatization. Take a step back and look. You are in control of the article. No one is working against you. I am not the main participant in editing or on the talk page, but if I post any question or concern I get attacked and parodied and long discussions ensue, all driven by the same editors who have attacked me here." Note the use of "parodied", which denotes deliberate misrepresentation, and which he has frequently used when he wants to say that his position is being inaccurately summarized. He has resumed frequent posting at Talk:Germanic peoples (in addition to making one small change to the article itself with a diffident edit summary); with his repeated serious aspersions in this discussion, that is inappropriate. It is apparent that no admin is going to block him, which is a pity because it might have been a sufficiently unambiguous signal as to cause him to reevaluate his argument strategy and his assumption that his article ownership is acceptable here. But instead I must advocate for the less preferable means of stopping his disruption of the editing process. Someone who tenaciously believes that only adherents of his preferred school of theorists should be allowed to work on articles about Germanic peoples, and that disagreement with him constitutes an attack that he is entitled to bludgeon against, should not be editing on such topics or posting to the talk pages. Other editors have expertise in the field and are more than capable of ensuring that the scholarly point of view he favors is adequately represented in the articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see multiple editors making long and frequent posts, both on the article talk page and here. I don't see any cause to topic ban just one of them. This thread is long on opinion but short on diffs of actual disruption. Seems like a content dispute to me. By the way, from skimming the article talk page, it seems to me the root problem is that the editors working there have yet to identify what the leading sources are for this topic. Accurately and neutrally summarizing the sources is impossible until the sources are identified. Levivich 13:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't T-ban people on their first rodeo unless they're clearly operating in bad faith or without WP:COMPETENCE, and yet it's clear that even the editors most concerned about AL's behavior consider him operating in good faith and with considerable competence. He just needs to exercise a different form of [social] competence and learn not to bludgeon discussions to death. I'll agree with critics that the Germanic/Goths discussions have dragged and dragged and dragged unnecessarily, and that AL is the proximal cause of much of this disputation and time-sinking. However, the process has not been entirely unproductive. It could simply have been much more productive. I think the self-moderation proposal below is more reasonable at this time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Can Andrew Lancaster suggest a solution?

@Andrew Lancaster: So, despite your best efforts, even those of us who applaud your work say that there is a problem at those articles as described above. Do you have a suggestion, even of some voluntary approach to try? North8000 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC

• Support this question. Dynasteria (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I would also support some proposal by Andrew given that most involved editors agree his editing is problematic, if well-meaning. My preferred solution would be a one year topic ban, but perhaps there are other ways of fixing things up.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I am stunned at this proposal. "OK, you didn't do the murder, but you did do deconstructionism, so can we agree on a year?" I see neutral Wikipedians posting above don't see any justification for singling me out. There is nothing being blocked by me. That is nonsense. The article and its talk page might be terrible but the direction looks better than for a while and I am contributing to that according to pretty much everyone. Let's just keep working? I find it really sad and surreal that you have attacked me like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The problem here is not a particular editor but some controversy about the topic. The solution in such cases is to attract attention so that more editors attend, express their take on the issue and so help establish a better consensus. This is best done by an RfC but this ANI entry will have a similar effect. Andrew Lancaster will no doubt take on board the various comments made and, in any case, their individual position will be more diluted by the input of others. The outcome we need to settle here is whether any immediate admin action is required and I'm not convinced that it is. This just seems to be a content dispute and so it goes ... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson, various attempts have been made to attract more editors to the topic, including by myself (see [48], [49]), however most are simply put off by the complexity of the discussion and accompanying walls of text and leave. As I've said before, I believe that the complexity of the discussion is largely the result of Andrew Lancaster's manner of arguing, rather than the subject being more complex in and of itself than other areas. This is not just a topic dispute, it's a behavioral problem.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• If it is not a content dispute why was POV included as part of the complaint? OTOH, while your examples of POV disputes are old arguments with Bloodofox where you agreed with me, the emotionally trigger to this complaint was basically at least a short-term content dispute: [50] Andrew, you are trying to force the definition of a single clique of historians onto the article - this is precisely why no one liked how you had edited the article before (and other comments in a similar theme). Apparently to some extent you've been drawn into Bloodofox's idea that this is a battle of linguists versus historians, and Carlstak's and Berig's ideas that they are mustering a team of linguistic experts and I am in the way? Would this whole ANI case really have existed without those battling ideas constantly being floated, and making normal BRD discussions difficult?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• The reason I brought up POV is that you've been pushing the article in a certain way, and it took my actually getting involved in editing it to understand exactly how this is happening. Whether you mean to or not, the walls of text cause people to become irate and annoyed and then eventually to check out entirely. They decide it's not worth the effort to try to debate with you since no matter what they say you will post a wall of text that discards their opinion. I have agreed with you on many things - but I still think you are bludgeoning for a certain perspective (POV) in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• (1) "Walls of text" is a silly thing to keep referring to in this context where longish posts are common among many editors on this topic including you, and some of the posts which annoy you were short. Let's use the word you've recently taken over from the anti-academic battlers to use on talk pages when targetting me: You say my posts are "deconstructionism". This is quickly becoming the most common word as everyone can check. But you don't mean I am a partisan of Jacques Derrida, you mean I look critically and carefully at definitions in sources. (As can also be checked.) Doesn't this match the aims of Wikipedia? Can you deny that this is what you mean? (2) Yes, I agree, this whole discussion here is all about certain people getting irate, including now you. Angry people are attacking me. Look at the observations of neutral observers though. I mean how bad is Deconstructionism right? The anger and intimidation has long been coming from the long term battlers who've been making these article talk pages bad for years, and not the people scared away by them. As Bloodofox warned me, "this is not my first rodeo". Be honest: editors including me and you have been repulsed by these article talk pages over a long period, and you have probably now taken a deep breath before jumping in just as I did a year ago. I want to support you in your efforts to move ahead, but this action you have taken against me can bring us back into the old battling circle. (3) You are saying this was not a content dispute but there is a POV problem. So you are pretending YOU are calm and not triggered by a small content dispute and instead there is some long-term POV problem which, before this ANI case, you have never mentioned. In fact, you still have not named it. Which POV am I pushing? Is it the one mentioned by Alcaios above? You are calling for a ban on a colleague so put it on the table please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• @North8000: I have made friendly commitments to do my best above, and I am open to ideas, but we have consider the real context. Nearly everyone who posts on Germanic peoples could be accused of something, if our aim would be to wikilawyer. I must add that now regret the way in which particularly Carlstak abused friendlier discussions about reducing the number of posts - using them as a rationale to express outrage at anything and everything, even posting a complaint on the article page to notify everyone that I "broke my promise" by posting a message on a user page. We are now in an article rewriting phase, so several of us have been involved in relatively fast exchanges which (as Alcaios remarked) we should perhaps slow down. But in the meantime, the build up of Carlstak's off-topic, uncivil personal attacks and dramatizations has certainly played a crucial role in building up the emotions of some editors, leading to this strange case. If you look through the normal sorts of posts which regularly appear on the Germanic peoples talk page, incivility, long off-topic rants, walls of words, can all be found, but here is Ermenrich saying I must be banned because of my "manner of arguing". But not off-topic, uncivil, etc, - instead referring to me giving detailed careful readings of sources, and comparisons of different logical options. I do not know how unusual this is on ANI, but to me it seems Kafkaesque. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

What I see there is two articles that are mired down due to the complexity of the topics and issues. Differing viewpoints appear to be only secondary causes. Nobody there has a knack for moving forward out of the mire, and as a result there whoever does the most work (Andrew) is creating the most miring. My idea would be to archive all past discussions. Then everybody try your ideas as SMALL individual edits on a BRD basis, one or two at a time. If reverted, discuss those small individual simple edits in talk, making only succinct arguments. For those most focused on Andrew Lancaster, they can rest assured that these changes most change/reduce what he is doing. Do this for 2 months and maybe it will establish a pattern that keeps the process out of the mire. I could camp out at both articles for 2-3 weeks as a facilitator of getting that process going. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It might be a bit different than you think. On Goths, things are stuck because the two main editors have to use RFCs to change the article. On Germanic peoples, in the last few days things are moving ahead but I am not the one doing the most work or wanting to make lots of proposals. Ermenrich is rewriting the article. I fully support this, and my hope is that I can give support and feedback. Ermenrich came here because I raised one or two awkward questions which E felt would hold things back but this was an over-reaction and editing continues. Most of the examples were from past situations. The talk page is busy but better than usual in terms of being focussed upon sources and content. I do not want to predict too much about what happens after this has run its course, but I think it is not controversial to say that this is when the main editors expect to review whether the article scope is good and whether splitting is needed. I don't think the situation right now could be much better actually. On the other hand the philosophy of having me under watch etc sounds ok, but please double check the situation and adapt the idea?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably indicative of the state of affairs on both is that I've spent a few hours on the Goth article over 4 months and 15 minutes on the Germanic article and had no idea that either of the things that you described is the case or even what the current situation is.North8000 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: Agree with your proposal about small edits, succinct arguments. However, characterizing an editor's behavior as (basically) "doing the most work therefore getting the most blame" in a really tough situation is turning the whole discussion on its head. Perhaps the way to look at problematic behavior, instead, is to ask (much like an anthropologist or psychologist) what benefit is the person getting out of the behavior? The topic is no more complex and difficult than the people working on it are making it. Why is it being made unnecessarily complex? Well, the objective evidence suggests clearly that such behavior provides control. Who has been controlling the article for nigh onto a year? Well, I'll let others answer that, but it has been stated already that it's Andrew. I'm attempting to go about this in a friendly fashion. However, as Ermenrich stated, the problem is that AL has not admitted to doing anything wrong. Additionally, I was more than a little shocked to come upon this article late in the game (mine and the article's game) and find such blatant bias and, from my perspective, a kind of lurking hostility toward Germanic peoples. I'm too old to be surprised by much, but I remain shocked nevertheless. I'd very much like to see this article fixed, but part of doing that is recognizing that the morass is illusory and created by human beings. To remove the bias, responsible parties have to recognize it's there. Dynasteria (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria: you are talking about past versions of the article. Ermenrich is rewriting the article and I am happy about that. Wait till that is done and then let's see if that is still biased according to you. But honestly, it probably will be right? In other words your understanding of why the article was biased is something not many other editors agree with so Ermenrich is not likely to change that problem for you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it is quite unwise to ignore the plethora of editors from the Germanic peoples page—nearly every editor there, in fact—who highlights major problems with Andrew Lancaster's editing style. It's obvious that he's engaging in WP:BLUDGEON and ignoring this fact will only cause the problem to continue. Without Andrew Lancaster consistently attempting to micromanage every aspect of the article with walls of text, we're finally seeing progress toward improvement. The article doesn't need a babysitter, it needs rejection of the constant bludgeoning stemming from a single editor. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Plethora? "Nearly every?" Not quite true is it? Micromanage? Ermenrich now dominates the article in every way. No one is blocking the article. My posts do not dominate the talk page in any way. The article is being rebuilt, and no one can blame me for that anymore which is great for me. When the weaker accusations are stripped away I am just the annoying guy who points to terminology and definitional concerns etc; reading the sources. Please stop poisoning the wells with all your battling talk. I do believe you are to a large extent responsible for getting Ermenrich to see this as a battle and take this action.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Plethora and nearly every, yep. Go ahead and count them—they're all listed in the section above telling you to knock it off, some more gently than others. The fact that you just can't help yourself is one thing but attempting to blame others for your behavior is something else entirely. The article is moving forward because you've been told to knock it off by no less than a crowd at this point, some of them--including myself--even bothering to seek a topic ban for you. Now that's an achievement. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: I'm happy to wait and see. It appears progress is being made. Dynasteria (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bloodofox:, it is good that we can at least agree that Ermenrich and other editors are able to work on the article with no-one holding them up, and that this situation began BEFORE this ANI case. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Some Observations on the discussion so far

In spite of a number of involved or uninvolved users stating firmly that a topic ban in this matter is out of the question, the users Thomas.W, Bloodofox, Dynasteria, Yngvadottir and Carlstak over the last few days have increased their rhetoric and their demands, first calling for a wider topic ban and now even for a block of Andrew Lancaster. When initially the charge was limited at WP:WALLSOFTEXT and OWN, we are now looking at the following complaints:

• AL pushes POV, as expressed by several editors. When AL asked for concrete evidence of his POV pushing, so far nothing was brought forward in terms of diffs.
• AL plays the racist card, to which bloodofox hastily agrees, although the evidence for this claim is rather flimsy, as in the "offending" contribution AL was just defending himself against the above POV accusations, and actually quite reasonably, not making any accusations against anyone in particular.
• AL emotionalizes and personalizes any discussion, also being impolite to others, citing an incident where AL politely explains his choice of words.

All this is being balanced by an increasing level of accusatory rhetoric that significantly overstepped the lines crossing over into incivility. Here are some examples of text snippets found among the contributions of the named editors: "describing his tactics as bludgeoning is spot on, because that is what he is doing", "attempt to drive all editors away", "his fantasy world", "enough is enough—I have yet to see any benefit's to this guy's editing, which is indeed POV-fixated and generally poor in these areas", "stonewalling anyone who dares attempt to discuss", "outrageous and absolutely unacceptable", "we're playing into his game, his usual technique", "royal clusterfuck", "he climbs up on his cross of victimhood", "strikes me as something pathological", "remove Andrew Lancaster from the picture and these articles will be FA-quality in no time".

To me it reads as "no matter what anyone here says about the lack of gravity of the charges brought against AL, or what people think about his good faith and qualities as an editor, no matter that North8000 offered herself as a mediator for the page, we want to see AL blocked!" To me this confirms my initial impression that after all it may not have been AL's behavior that ultimately generated this thread. After all this verbal abuse without substance, I am wondering if it isn't time to play the boomerang card. LandLing 13:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: LandLing, please define "rhetoric" for everyone. I'm aware of increasing reasoned and logical responses, that is, skilled and persuasive discourse. The word carries those connotations for me. Dynasteria (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a second sense to the word: "language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. You can safely assume that I used the word in this sense. LandLing 14:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I assure you I am always sincere and mean what I say. Therefore I reject your characterization. Meanwhile, I'm going through the links in your post (the evidence for your arguments) and it seems to me you lump various editors together and use one set of comments to delegitimize another set. Some of your points may be perfectly valid but it's hard to follow your argument. Ultimately, though, I don't want Andrew banned. I want better articles. Dynasteria (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

References

@Landroving Linguist Please understand that these comments are the results of long-going (how long, two years now?) and mounting frustration with Andrew's continued domination of Germanic peoples' talk page, as shown recently here and here. The first one is the one where I reached my breaking point, since he posted it soon after pleas from Ermenrich and me to please be more concise. It's not just the length of his comments, it's the sheer volume of them—he overwhelms all other commentary, making it very difficult to follow the conversation. As pointed out earlier, he's made 860 of its edits (44.1%). The next most frequently posting editor has made only 179 (9.2%). Andrew has added 754,829 bytes of text to the talk page (56.2%), the equivalent of several very long articles, versus 220,121 bytes (16.4%) added by the other editor, Krakkos, with whom Andrew has also carried on a long-running and acrimonious dispute, from which Krakkos has since withdrawn. I believe the same thing has happened at the Goths article. Andrew has worn many of us involved editors out, and new editors who might contribute are scared away. I apologize to Andrew for the intemperate comments I've made, we've had some pleasant exchanges in the past, even quite recently, and to the community. I got carried away when the article was restored to a previous version that more people found acceptable, and other editors were getting involved again, but then Andrew resumed his characteristic very frequent posting, often at length. It seemed that the progress finally made was going to be dragged down once again. Carlstak (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It is good to hear that apology from you, which will go a long way. Yes, I can see your frustration, but I also took a few hours this morning to read through the Germanic peoples talk page. Although it is certainly very long, there is nothing in there from AL that justifies a topic ban or even a block. Bringing this up here to ANI with this intent has been quite frivolous, to say the least. I hope you also can distance yourself from the more serious accusations that were brought against AL, because they don't really reflect well on those who brought them up to raise the heat in this discussion. LandLing 14:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Landroving Linguist, but have you looked at the archives? It would take a long time to read all the commentary, I think more than half of it written by Andrew since he started posting. It seems that his responding at such frequency and volume is effectively what could reasonably be described as bludgeoning. The acrimony between him and Krakkos, expressed at great length, was extremely frustrating to other editors, and better illustrates why some of us have lost patience. Carlstak (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I, and the other edits who have concurred with my characterization of events, do not agree with you this report has been "frivolous". Just because you can't understand how difficult and demoralizing dealing with the sheer volume of text can be, most of it either focused on extremely minor points, or else trying to push the article in a completely different direction than most editors think it should. We've had endless discussions about whether or not the subject of "Germanic peoples" includes people who spoke Germanic languages or not. At Goths, there's been endless discussions in which Andrew has tried to remove any reference to linguistics related to the Goths. The archives are full of this stuff. It's just too much for most people. While I may not agree with some of Andrew's most strident critics, I do think that the constant bludgeoning walls of text are a problem that needs to be dealt with, and Andrew himself shows absolutely no sign of doing so.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Carlstak: @Ermenrich: It is strange to me that this whole thing was launched some days AFTER Ermenrich completely rewrote the article, proving that no one had been blocking this at all. If I was not actually causing a practical problem then the complaint is frivolous. In effect you are now admitting you just came here to complain that you find me annoying. I find a lot of people annoying too. I also think that there is a giant gorilla in the room, which is that there are no such problems in discussions with Alcaios, Srnec, Austronesier, or Ermenrich (the editors who cite sources) in many other related articles that get less attention. The reason for the difference is obvious. The Germanic peoples talk page has a relatively large number of high-impact intimidating editors who visit frequently and make uncivil comments about other editors, and their "agendas", but never cite sources or work constructively. They've been trying to get more people upset for a long time. Can either of you seriously convince yourself that I am the one who keeps bringing up Walter Goffart, and all the other arguments which are the ones that repeat over and over, and get mixed into every discussion, every time? Ermenrich can you imagine us arguing about that if it was just the two of us? Of course I will keep doing my best, but if you have to write constantly expecting that you are about to be attacked by people like Carlstak, or have your words twisted as throughout this discussion, over and over, it does not help concision? Ermenrich if we are honest, then those have been the distraction discussions, and I literally have no idea what you are talking about with your new accusation. Are you seriously saying that there have been "endless discussions in which Andrew has tried to remove any reference to linguistics related to the Goths"? What are you talking about? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, if I’m honest I really just think you need to pledge to stop posting walls of text and maybe even take a break from the article. Even when you are being reasonable the sheer amount of text makes it feel like an attack. I do think you’ve gotten too fixated on not Goffart specifically, but a direction of scholarship that tosses out all other disciplines who need to be in the article. That is why this was brought to ANI: I certainly don’t enjoy reporting you here, but it didn’t seem like I or anyone else was getting through to you.—-Ermenrich (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: There is too much exaggeration and dramatization. Take a step back and look. You are in control of the article. No one is working against you. I am not the main participant in editing or on the talk page, but if I post any question or concern I get attacked and parodied and long discussions ensue, all driven by the same editors who have attacked me here. You are not an angel watching from heaven. Two necessary conditions for this ANI case, and the difficulties of keeping discussions neat on the talk page are definitely: (1) Editors personalizing their frustrations about normal content-related challenges; (2) Editors distorting each other's positions. You and Carlstak both now seem to have picked up those bad habits. Concerning your Goths aspersion you are not really answering, so switching to generalizations: yes, there are differences between branches of scholarship which give us challenges. HOWEVER, none of us editors who read the sources could get confused and angry about this if we were working without all the extra noise on a less well-known article. No-one is trying to toss something out, unless you are, so you're summary of my concern with your explanation about the new opening lines is frankly an uncritical distortion that evolved straight from "denying the German race" meme. You have not really read what I was saying, because instead you brought it here. (That was my only long recent post - because careful.) If you want a short TLDR version see my question to Ealdgyth. In response to your "take a break" proposal, unfortunately in less friendly WP editing situations you have to be careful about making friendly compromises which can be twisted into precedents, admissions or promises. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, I'm going to break my promise to myself not to interact with you any more. After repeated pleas to ease up on the frequency and length of your comments, you ignored those pleas, as you've done all along, because you don't see a problem with your voluminous and very frequent commentary that makes it difficult for other editors to see what's going on, as has been remarked many times. Yes, it's true that Ermenrich reverted the article to a previous version from which to start anew, and progress was being made, but you immediately took to the talk page to register your concerns, as you always do, with multiple, wordy points of 5,092 bytes. I thought, "Oh no, here we go again. The article is going to get bogged down because of Andrew's refusal to consider the comfort and limits of the patience of the people who are forced to read all his verbiage, unless they simply withdraw, as many have done). To give other editors an idea of what I'm talking about with the excessive commentary, obfuscating in effect, I present this interaction timeline between you and Krakkos. Warning: it takes a while to reach the end, after much scrolling downward. The interactions on the talk page of Germanic peoples starts at 2019-09-07. Carlstak (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Carlstak: Honestly, such posts are a problem, not a solution. You could certainly be described in recent times as someone who posts long off-topic posts, and is deliberately trying to disrupt the work of another editor.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So, there's a large crowd of editors here discussing Lancaster's numerous editing problems, and you think it's the crowd's fault? Now that's a creative takeaway. WP:LISTEN. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Andrew and all how about this?: Andrew's very Wikipedian work is appreciated, but the sheer quantity of that work and discussions at the 2 subject articles is causing problems. Andrew will voluntarily cut their amount of work and posts at the subject two articles down to about 1/3 of their previous amount for a month, details on this to be interpreted by Andrew.. After a month the agreement expires but it is hoped that the new pattern established will continue. This ANI will be closed but after 2 weeks concerned persons can reopen a new one if they see fit. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like something a little bit more clear than that. What does 1/3 mean, exactly? That main problem is just his lengthy talk pages posts, as well as, I think, a myopic focus on excluding "Germanic-speaking peoples" from the article "Germanic peoples".--Ermenrich (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: First 2 sentences: do you have a suggestion? Long third sentence has no connection to reality, and is a specific content issue that you're now introducing. I don't think that's practical. (If you really believe it then it shows how much of the current problems are problems caused by personalization of frustrations, and distortions of other editors. This is a content issue, but whatever else happens I would eventually like to have a bit of your time for a discussion to clear this up. I also feel frustrations, like you. It is always horrible to see someone misreport you over and over.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support North8000's proposal. And I also appeal to more restraint from other editors, however "annoyed" they may feel. Can we agree to commit ourselves to DS-like standards in the talk page and the article? –Austronesier (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support for North8000's proposal, and for Austronesier's call for restraint. Edit: I have changed my mind on N8K's proposal (for which I was very grateful as a big step away from the wrong direction), in a way expressed below. LandLing 20:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• North, I appreciate your creativity, and Austronesier I think your words are gold. Sounds doable if done in a reasonable way. However I'd point out that my normal rate of work on the actual article is low and not really the subject of this complaint, so I think the focus is on the talk page? You are going to need to define it though. Are you thinking about something like a number of posts per day and/or bytes limit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

After scanning the history, what about maximum 10 talk-page posts each running 7-day period, maximum size of 1500 bytes per post, and 1700 bytes per day. I presume this is much less than one third of my normal output for some periods. I don't see any reason to be limiting anything on Goths or the Germanic peoples article itself. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, the intent is to get it down to about 1/3 of your overall rate of activity on those two articles, and yes, it's mostly about talk pages. And it's structured as self-regulated, self-determined by you so details such as you propose are not necessary. But if you want them, fine. The intent is not to create a new rulebook, it's just to get you to do less on those articles, especially the talk pages. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, that is fuzzy so forget the exact numbers, but I'll try to be uncontroversially within that. To be honest my historical participation has been connected to the lack of editors who had time to spend on quality work on the article as opposed to comments on the talk page, and also (as Alcaios mentioned from the start) concerns with occasional attempts to reintroduce what Alcaios politely calls 19th century essentialism. While we have Ermenrich leading work on Germanic peoples, I'm happy to watch and support or comment, as others are doing. I hope I will not continue to be distorted, and I hope the ad hominem posts will stop! While I've clearly taken some wrong steps and should accept some responsibility I do feel however very sad about the way in which ad hominem posts, distortions of my position, and the liberal use of dramatic outrage, have led to this case. I am convinced that if there had been no systematic programme of declaring that I had an "agenda" (variously evolving: Goffart, "revisionism", anti linguist, anti Germanic, "deconstructionism" etc etc) this would not have happened. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with N8k about not having numerical limits but FWIW those numbers are way too high. How much time do you expect other editors will spend on this article, per day/week? What proportion of that time should they spend on reading what you write? That's the way to think about it. Levivich 14:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I really don't want to cause anybody any problem of course, but it is a busy page, and currently undergoing a reconstruction. I was honestly thinking one post per day, and occasionally two, is a quite tight restriction given the normal rate at which not only myself but also others post there and edit the article? I am honestly open to suggestions on how to judge this. I guess we all judge such things based on our experiences of what is normal around us on particular types of articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, I wonder whether we are on the same page here. N8K expressed the limits in terms of bytes, not words. To get this into perspective, AL's post right above this one has exactly 605 bytes, so a limit of 1700 brings it into the range of less than three of these contributions. This is not excessive by anyone's standard, and I don't think it is helpful to restrict any editor using boundaries that are just not realistic. But as I say, I suspect that this is just a matter of misunderstood units. LandLing 18:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Landroving Linguist, you are right: I misread that as 1500 words per post, not bytes. I don't think a word or byte or post limit is helpful, either. The relevant unit of measurement IMO is minutes (of other editors' time). Levivich 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unacceptable accommodation for an editor who has bludgeoned, attacked, insinuated, and represented himself as the victim right here and is now bargaining for the right to continue acting as a self-appointed gatekeeper. The chilling effect of both his argument tactics and his insinuations is apparent and has been documented here; subject-matter experts and good writers have been driven away by Andrew Lancaster's acting as arbiter of what Goths and Germanic peoples can say, he is unapologetic, and the problem is not that he has a wordy style or that he is being attacked, or even that he is arguing for a valid scholarly point of view on contentious topics; the problem is that he has a detrimental effect on the articles, up to and including not abiding by minimum rules for civil interaction and not accepting the validity of criticism about his approach. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir: Please give diffs for "attacked", "insinuated" and "not abiding by minimum rules for civil interaction". I stated above that so far the only reasonable documentation in this thread was about WP:WALLSOFTEXT, which is by no means a punishable crime on Wikipedia, if the text is to the point. You are again introducing or repeating charges for which we have not seen any reasonable documentation. Please give us that documentation, or stop doing that. The same applies to bloodofox. Claiming "numerous editing problems" as you did above without so far showing us even one of them is not going to help your cause, but it reinforces my above suspicion that you are part of the problem. LandLing 10:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: I think I may be the only participant in this discussion who has brought diffs and quotations. I quoted the insinuation above: "Editors on Germanic topics attract a lot of intimidating anger and aggression from editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race, who academics are denying the existence of because they are dominated by ideologies and political correctness." I have more recently quoted Andrew Lancaster's doubling down on that insinuation in a response to me: "Several of the editors here really have been part of a systematic push around Wikipedia to delete reference to specific scholars who they claim to have an agenda to 'remove the Germanic peoples from history'". That makes it clear that the accusation of identification with a Germanic race (my emphasis) and of a "push" to delete mention of scholars on such grounds are not drive-by white supremacists or a deluded minority, but those of his fellow editors who disagree with him. Since you apparently require me to personally convince you, I refer you again to my post above supporting Thomas W.'s proposal for a comprehensive topic ban, or you may feel free to re-read Andrew Lancaster's own statements and to remind yourself of the heading of this section, by Ermenrich (who I believe agrees with most of Andrew Lancaster's positions on the scholarship), which refers to WP:OWN and WP:BLUDGEON, both of which are violations of editor conduct standards, although I would not presume to school you on when they cross the line into obvious policy violation. I have also invoked WP:RGW. Perhaps I have been too verbose and you have not read my fuller arguments, above. If you have, please forgive my repetition in responding to your request. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, thanks. Yes, I have read your previous contributions, and in my OP to this section I have also stated clearly that these are rather flimsy grounds for an accusation that AL is playing the racism card. Both passages you quote you interpret as insinuations and use them against AL, but, from reading what I read so far in and about Germanic people, both statements are actually factual statements that need to be evaluated against what they are referring to. Apparently there are editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race. Obviously there are academics who deny the existence of that, and they do seem to claim that such ideas about the ongoing Germanic race are based on ideologies and political correctness. All these are factual statements, and their validity can be discussed without assuming that AL is attacking any editors, such as you, in particular. It is also beyond doubt that AL's statement about editors pushing systematically to delete references to specific scholars is correct, and we can ask Andrew Lancaster for a diff regarding the statement that these editors claim that said scholars have an agenda to remove the Germanic peoples from history, as this seems to be a quote that he has taken out of a talk page discussion. With no word has he accused you or anyone else in particular of being a racist, and I think you know that quite well. Look, this is a discussion where editors wantrequest to *block* or *topic-ban* AL. Frankly, no admin is going to doimplement that on the evidence given so far. The WP:OWN and WP:BLUDGEON charges go quite a bit beyond just observing WP:WALLSOFTEXT, and the jury is even still out on them, as apparently at least the ownership issue had been resolved even before that whole case was brought before ANI. In summary, there is no convincing evidence for AL's attacking and insinuating behavior, and certainly nothing that gets anywhere close to AL not adhering to civil conduct. LandLing 11:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Now, what specifically in AL's behavior warrants a WP:RGW tag? I didn't understand that. LandLing 11:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Yngvadottir: after your first post you switched to expressions of outrage that are effectively treating both me and the neutral admins as dishonest in our reporting of relevant extra context. To point to the gorilla in the room, from your own posts, and various discussions between us previously, this is purely connected to my descriptions of the interactions I have had with several editors you seem to have a longer history of working with (Berig and Bloodofox and I suppose also Thomas.W). The fact is that is that my experience is of them entering discussions and then making personal attacks against me, not citing sources, distorting my position, casting aspersions, poisoning the well, and literally nothing else. Their position is that I am a propagandist for the scholar Walter Goffart (which is not true), who they accuse of wanting to eliminate Germanic peoples from history (which is not true), and who Ermenrich, Austronesier, Srnec etc encouraged me to cite more in 2020. The talk page is frequented by many editors making these claims about WP eliminating the Germanic people from history, and I don't know all their exact backgrounds, so I can only judge them by their actions towards me, and report those. It is clear these editors have a shared POV-based accusation which is completely different from any position I have ever seen put forward by Ermenrich, Austronesier, Srnec, Alcaios, etc who are all editors I have a good history of working with on different articles, and who cite sources (including Goffart) and have a long history of editing and discussing things on Germanic peoples at the same times when I have. So in a sense there are two different incompatible sets of concerns being mixed together. One is about too many or too long posts, and people annoying each other etc, and I have taken it seriously from the beginning. The other is one which I think would require a more complete review of the editing of the above-mentioned accusing editors, Berig, Bloodofox and Thomas.W. I personally do not like wikilawyering or overdramatization but I make no apologies for saying that those editors have acted systematically in problematic ways against me, and that I can't logically take them to be part of the same claim as Ermenrich. Furthermore they are not offering advice (as you did in your first post) and they won't be happy with any practical compromises. Unfortunately their participation here is simply part of their longer run efforts to disrupt any work by me on these topics. That is the truth as I understand it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: Hopefully the diffs you and Yngvadottir have suggested I should show won't be called bludgeoning by anyone!

• Bloodofox was I think an occasional visitor for a long time (longer than me) on Germanic peoples but entered discussion heavily with this thread [51] which was nominally about a new Germanic folklore article drafted over a long period together with Ermenrich and Berig.[52], though no-one has mentioned that since. A large-scale deletion of Goffart mentions followed [53]. The aggression towards me was obvious.[54] I contacted Bloodofox on their talk page to complain about ad hominem posts several times where further comments about Goffart and me can be noted. Bloodofox then called people for comment including many editors who I don't recall seeing on Germanic peoples, including Thomas.W who is not even a very active editor.[55]
• Berig's stated position is that scholars are wrong as shown by their disagreement with the Encylopaedia Brittanica and will be proven soon by advances in DNA research [56]. Soon after posting that statement, Berig seems to have gone to check the Goths article, seen that it was under admin oversight, and then gone to that admin to try to get me blocked, which is when our interactions started. The sequence of aspersion castings (agenda etc) that ensued is remarkable, but no diffs or similar were ever given.[57] They now mainly seem to work on such draft articles which are lists of Germanic things, but also has a longer history on Germanic topics. But recently Berig entered Germanic peoples talk to join the discussion started by Bloodofox, and I think Berig is the one who recently started repeating the term "bludgeoning" over and over about me, leading to requests that I reduce my posting and let others decide the future of the article.
• Thomas.W's activity level is low, so easy to check. Their main pursuit of me was in the first half of 2020, when every edit that user did had some connection to this theme, with constant focus upon Goffart (who has been cited in WP for a long time before I knew anything about him). In a post to Srnec Goffart is described as a "historian who has as his stated goal the total removal of all Germanic peoples, and everything relating to them, from history" (which is not true, as Srnec has explained various times). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, can you show us the diff for this quote: "historian who has as his stated goal the total removal of all Germanic peoples, and everything relating to them, from history", which would be quite important in your defense, as it shows that you were making a factual statement based on the talk history. LandLing 13:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I missed it. [58]. Bloodofox made similar claims in several places linked to above. Goffart's concern is however with the usefulness of the term in "late antiquity", which was a use connected to claims of continuity into medieval and modern times. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh please, I've been editing on ancient Germanic studies topics on English Wikipedia for around a decade and a half. I returned to the then-mess that was the article after completing a draft of Proto-Germanic folklore with several other editors, all of them here. I then encountered a very clear example of WP:BLUDGEON and POV-editing. This talk page is full of editors who encountered similar, specifically classic WP:BLUDGEON at a rate I rarely encounter outside of fringe topic pages. This thread is about your behavior, Andrew. Rather than listening to the crowd here telling him to knock it off and channel his urges into a something more appropriate (like a blog), we're now seeing conspiracy theories from Andrew ("I make no apologies for saying that those editors have acted systematically in problematic ways against me, and that I can't logically take them to be part of the same claim as Ermenrich ... Unfortunately their participation here is simply part of their longer run efforts to disrupt any work by me on these topics" — wtf, take a note for your defense of Andrew, @Landroving Linguist:). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, you have once more made an accusation of POV editing without providing any documentation, although you have been asked not to do this. This gives the impression of deliberate contempt of the way discussions are to be conducted on ANI, where diffs are the currency of the exchange. With your blanket statements about AL's alleged misconduct you have contributed exactly nothing to this debate except a significant increase of heat. This is disruptive, and with language such as "knock it off" and "channel his urges into something more appropriate" you have once more crossed the line into personally attacking Andrew Lancaster. I find this rather deplorable and not worthy of an editor in long standing as you are. I'm seriously contemplating to ask the admins to invoke a topic ban against you, because I'm getting more and more convinced that this would solve some of the problems on these pages. You have presented enough material to work with over the last few days to build that case, and there is more on the talk pages. LandLing 22:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think there may be a misapprehension here. I have looked through this noticeboard section once more, and I don't see any "neutral admins" participating; the only admin I notice here is Berig. (Ealdgyth is an admin and sought at Talk:Germanic peoples to act as a neutral arbiter, but as I wrote above, I consider Andrew Lancaster was rudely dismissive to her; however, as I said and as demonstrated by statements here, editors differ in their perception of hardball argument tactics.) Landroving Linguist, who dismisses the complaints as "frivolous", has called for boomerang sanctions, and demands documentation, is active elsewhere at this noticeboard but is not an admin. Levivich is a regular at this noticeboard but is not an admin. North8000, whose good faith I do not doubt but who appears to have entered this discussion with a very non-neutral statement, "It would be a travesty to sanction an editor for working hard on articles in a very Wikipedian fashion." at the same time as starting a new section inviting Andrew Lancaster to make his own suggestion for what should be done, and he and I therefore disagree considerably in our assessment of the matter under discussion, is also not an admin. Snowded, who has also contributed to the discussion, is not an admin. Nor is Srnec, or Alcaios, or Thomas W. (Nor for that matter am I.) Non-admins, particularly experienced editors, are of course welcome to contribute to discussions on this board, and to attempt to move them toward a resolution. (I wonder whether I have missed some of Landroving Linguist's experience, perhaps under a different user name; I do not recall encountering this editor before, although I have a bad habit of reading AN/I and I admit I am bad at names.) I am sad to say that conspiracy theories about other editors cabaling against one (WP:BATTLE as well as WP:RGW are uncollegial, and their unapologetic repetition on this noticeboard is contrary to our civility policy at the very least. I am pleased to see one small improvement in that "The fact is that is that my experience is of them entering discussions and then making personal attacks against me, not citing sources, distorting my position, casting aspersions, poisoning the well, and literally nothing else." is a statement of what the editor has perceived, rather than an assertion of others' intent, but the accusations of personal attacks, casting aspersions, and poisoning the well still amount to the pot calling the kettle black, and based on the judicious statements I have read in this discussion, are unfounded. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist:, whoever you are, I get that you're keen—for whatever reason—on fighting tooth and nail to defend Andrew from the numerous editors on this talk page describing his behavior as classic WP:BLUDGEON and are clearly willing to look the other way at whatever he happens to say (like accusing other editors of together conspiring against him—which I quote directly in my previous comment), but I'd prefer you not make threats, whether to me or others—if you've got a case for topic bans, go for it. Otherwise I ask you too to "knock it off" and review WP:LISTEN. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as the only remedy that seems likely to find any consensus at then moment. I would prefer something more definite, however.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but only because this seems to be the only way forward at the moment.--Berig (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Ermenrich and Berig above. Carlstak (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support–I suppose this will need to do as a first step. Any reasonable editor who sees this talk page and notes the sheer volume of editors here discussing the user's behavioral issues (especially WP:BLUDGEON) will immediately see that this needs to be addressed and resolved. However, as I know that Wikipedia can often work in mysterious ways , something done is better than nothing. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I have not heard of a single problem in the history of Wikipedia where cutting activity to 1/3 for a month is a productive solution. If an editor needs a break, it should be a full break. Simply being prolific is not a sin; I suppose editors of a different political persuasion might be inclined to want 1/3 activity but that is not a good reason for one. I don't see anyone who has presented 2 or 3 diffs that justify any action (that action should be a straight TBAN, not an encouragement to reduce activity) in this thread; if I am to change my mind somebody must do so. I also don't see anything on Talk:Germanic peoples or that article's revision history that justifies action. There are certainly points where AL makes arguments against a consensus; the burden is to rebut those arguments, not to ban AL. This is a difficult topic; the process of writing an article ought to be difficult, and whether or not AL is involved is irrelevant to that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at the fact that Andrew Lancaster has posted over half the responses and over half the text on one page with several editors actively participating in discussions, and nearly that on another, and conclude that nothing is wrong. Should I provide diffs of all his responses? You've provided a link to an essay about AfD discussions, I've provided evidence above with links to examples of repetitive discussions, ignored advice, and the general problem. There's no way to reduce this sort of long-term behavior to diffs.

At any rate, I will defend this decision as a step in the right direction: it encourages Andrew to modify behavior that most editors involved in the talk page have found problematic.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any formal/logged sanction per the supports, really. Sorry, but I just find the supports extremely unconvincing here (and in some cases, rather aggressive). I see a group of people in a content dispute with AL and they're all supporting sanctions. And the main argument is that AL has written half the text and made half the edits to the talk page? That doesn't hold up. It matters how long an editor has been editing a page. Look at the xtools: [59]. Look closer at AL's edits: [60]. I am going to compare Andrew Lancaster with the next-highest editor who is supporting sanctions against AL for bludgeoning, Ermenrich:
  • AL: 863 edits, 756k, over 10 years, an avg of 86 edits and 75k per year.
  • Ermenrich: 100 edits, 50k, in six months. Annualized, that's 200 edits and 100k/yr.

Does that mean Ermenrich has been bludgeoning more than AL? No; if you look at AL's edits to the page, most have come in the last three years, and head-to-head in 2021, AL is probably still making more posts and longer posts. But this whole idea of sanctioning someone based on their xtools stats just doesn't persuade me.

And tbh like others here I see bigger problems on that page, like the "Let my people go" screed and participation here by a non-EC editor, yet none of the people supporting sanctions against AL seem to have a problem with this. This reads to me not so much as being about preventing disruption (since the most disruptive activity on the talk page is not being addressed here), but about preventing opposition (since only the opposing editor in a content dispute is being singled out here).

I do think that AL (and everyone else) should be mindful to keep the frequency/length of posts down, I just don't think this advice needs to be made into a sanction. Levivich 14:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: Sorry, but it does not all boil down to opposition and a content dispute. The OP Ermenrich is largely in agreement with AL about most points regarding the article's topic, and so am I. For the "traditionalists", Ermenrich's position is just as "deconstructionist" as AL's. But: AL has a tendency to address disagreement with the same lengthy, repetitive and almost templated arguments, whether engaging with an occasional drive-by right-wing extremist who identifies with the 19th/20th-century ideology of pan-"Germanic-ness", or with people who are just half-an-inch away from his position. This can be off-putting at times, but here I disagree with Ermenrich, is does not require admin intervention that leads to formal loss of editing rights. I read and support North8000's proposal as a mediation attempt, not as a sanction (even though of course all this is taking place in AN/I).

And paradoxical as it may seem, it is easier to ignore this[61] (in case you haven't seen it yet), than endless textwalls from an editor whom I otherwise highly value for his contributions and insights. –Austronesier (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll thank you to strike-through the comment "yet none of the people supporting sanctions against AL seem to have a problem with this". Wikipedia talk pages attract all sorts of nonsense. Ignoring it is not embracing it. It's offensive that you imply otherwise. I deal with enough pseudoscientific babble and far right-wing blather on this website to not have to deal with some drive-by user implying that because I ignored some inane comment on a talk page that I somehow approved of it. Ridiculous. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, it's not fair of me to interpret ignoring a comment as tolerating it. Stricken with my apologies. Levivich 17:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, "none of the people supporting sanctions against AL" have yet to support the sanctions against the "inane commenter" being proposed on this same noticeboard. That's what you should have said. Not an accusation aimed at anybody. I haven't chimed in on that thread, either. Srnec (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Srnec, no, Levivich shouldn't have made any such implications. You shouldn't have either. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: You're right, I would support it as a mediation attempt and not a sanction. I clarified my !vote that I oppose only a formal (meaning logged) sanction, but I don't actually oppose N8k's basic suggestion that AL reduce the amount of posts. Levivich 17:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per the well-reasoned arguments expressed by 力 and Levivich. LandLing 15:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support as worded, as an unlogged voluntary plan. Oppose if my word "voluntary" in my proposal gets missed and it were to get logged as a restriction. Andrew's behavior has been excellent. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• There do seem to have been some incredibly long talk page posts. Encyclopaedists summarize: it's our task to present complex and nuanced matters briefly and clearly, and this is a skill that Andrew Lancaster doesn't display. I think those talk pages would be better places if Andrew Lancaster could learn the courtesy of succinctness. I'm concerned that North8000's suggestion as written seems to risk continuing the conflict because of its sheer vagueness. If it passes, I envisage a likely scenario where Andrew Lancaster believes that he's complying in good faith while others have an equally good-faith belief that he's not. I would urge that this part of the remedy should be a clear and specific word-count cap, such as for example a ceiling of 500 words in any rolling 7-day period. It's an extreme stretch to describe the outcome of an AN/I as "voluntary", but my proposal would indeed need to be an advisory, unlogged measure, being too novel for a logged sanction. Nevertheless, it might perhaps be brought back here if not complied with.—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support: As a "mediation attempt". There does not seem to be any consensus for a block, T-ban, and even possible resistance to any "official" resolution like "immediate admin action". There is obviously an issue. It seems that even though some consider lines being crossed with the verbosity of Andrew Lancaster there also seems to be some validity to "So in a sense there are two different incompatible sets of concerns being mixed together". Ermenrich has elaborated there is a problem but supports this possible solution as does Bloodofox. One editor opposes it because it is something not evident in the history of Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia has a long history of evolving I don't consider asking (that is about what this amount to) an editor to limit the wall of texts in an attempt to "step back" from certain considered problematic editing practices. The one thing that seems clear is that these accusations seem to be more with talk pages than article editorial issues. A concern is that the "walls of text" can not only "mire" article improvements but potentially run off editors. A next step might include something more drastic. Any such next step might be circumvented by incremental changes, and by abiding by a dramatic reduction in comments. It should be remembered: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". -- Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reasonable. Some mediation and self-moderation are clearly needed, but this falls short of topic-ban territory at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Failure to close an RfC despite consensus has been achieved

An RfC was opened in 2021 Cuban protests' talk page on the inclusion of a cause in the infobox: [62]. In light of a consensus being achieved (a rough count shows that votes for Yes account for more than a double than those for No):

• I closed the RfC and posted a formal closure summary [63], and edited the article accordingly to include the discussed element.
• Davide King , reverted my closure of the RfC and my edit on the article. The editor that originally started this RfC added this note: "Note to Closer: There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic both above and below this RfC, which may be useful for any closure." Despite consensus has been achieved and despite the discussion ongoing at this point is by the same single user that reverted my closure: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].

Please, this requires arbitration. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Notes to admins and my version (Davide King)

As far as I am aware, the closure must be done by an uninvolved admin, certainly not by an emotionally involved user who took part to the RfC, i.e. the same user who took me here. For context, they also previously did not respect removal of the contentious (see this discussion and revision history, such as this, while I respected embargo's removal due to an RfC being opened about it). As noted by the user themselves, the RfC opener BSMRD noted "Note to Closer: There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic both above and below this RfC, which may be useful for any closure." Rather than asking an immediate closure, the RfC opener actually asked the closer (an admin, not an user who took part to the RfC itself) to consider the whole discussion, which in my view actually means to take all the necessary time to review the RfC before the closure. The user who took me also seem to ignore that Wikipedia is not a democracy based on voting or the numbers of 'yay'–'nay' but whether the arguments are based on our policies and guidelines; it is not up to them to "declare consensus", that is the job of the admins. If there is anyone to be sanctioned, it is not me. Davide King (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

When did I ask for an early closure of the RfC? Do you any evidence of that? Also, the contentious piece that you removed wasn't being discussed in a RfC at the moment I re-added it (I don't recall doing it while on RfC, but if did, I wasn't aware). You say: "[...] while I respected embargo's removal due to an RfC being opened about it." Are you sure? Consider [75] and [76]. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

By prematurely closing the Rfc, when that is the job of an admin or uninvolved and experienced user. Did you ignore the part of the edit summary where I literally stated "try possible, bold compromise for the infobox" and tried to appease with you by adding 'authoritarian', 'lack of civil liberties (freedom of association and political freedom)', which you wanted? See also Wikipedia:Be bold, this, and this. The RfC was whether to add or not the embargo, not whether to add it with a caveat among pharentesis, which would be a compromise, and I made the edit to see what other users thought and if they supported this possible solution and compromise. Clarified this, if you want to reply me back, write me to my talk page; this is neither the moment nor the place to discuss this. Davide King (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Just wanna clarify that these two conversation that you had ([77] and [78]) were not with me, but with other editors; so I don't know what you mean by bringing them up here. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ajñavidya, it appears that you attempted to close the RfC the same day that it was opened, with a result that favours a position you have advocated for on the talk page in question, and as such, David King's reversion was entirely appropriate. RfCs generally run for at least a month before there is a procedural close and can in fact run for much longer if contributions remain steady. One of the major advantages of an RfC is that they pull in opinions from editors disinterested in the content of the article who can give an unbiased policy read on an editorial dispute. They absolutely should not be closed by someone who has already been party to the underlying dispute, and certainly not mere hours after the RfC is opened. The 4:2 strict !vote ratio (which you described technically accurate and yet at the same time rather misleading terms of a 2:1 ratio) is not much of a consensus when you consider there have been a half dozen !votes total and you really haven't waited for input from the broader community. Furthermore, note that despite the sometimes confusing nomenclature, "!vote" consensus discussions are not decided purely on a straightforward numerical support basis: rather the closer will need to consider the result in light of broader community consensus as codified in project policies, which is another reason why said closer should ideally have no previous involvement in the dispute.

Please let the RfC run its course (there is WP:NORUSH here) and then let an uninvolved party close the discussion--it needn't be an admin, but ideally would at least be someone with experience sorting consensus conclusions from community discussions on contentious issues, and (again) should definitely be someone without "skin in the game" as the idiom goes. If push comes to shove, and you find yourself waiting after the 30 days, you can always ping me and I'll make an effort at figuring out where consensus has landed. You can also make such a request at WP:AN, WP:VPP, and other central community discussion spaces. Regardless, there is no behavioural issue here with regard to David which require community intervention. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll definitely consider it. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ajñavidya, consider reading WP:NACINV, which states: "editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted", which appears to be the case here. As noted by Snow Rise as well, this seems like a premature close, having been done only four days after it started. Isabelle ^🔔 00:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The outcome for "yes" is pretty clear, but the lack of awareness that would lead one to think they can close a discussion that they also voted in is pretty staggering. Zaathras (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Overturn and promptly reclose. Ironically I was multi-task preparing an WP:AN/RFC request for close when I saw this. The RFC should be closed, the general result was clearly correct, however Ajñavidya never should have preformed an involved close. Especially not given the vociferous minority opposition and entirely predictable challenge. Ajñavidya I don't know how much (if any) experience you have in closing, but I'd be happy to answer questions or offer advice in this area. I have experience and I find it a very interesting specialty. Of course the first advice is to to avoid any closure where anyone might credibly claim an actual or perceived conflict of interest. The cost of a potential challenge outweighs any hoped-for benefit of getting it done quicker or "easier".

• Informational note: Davide King please be aware that RFC closures do not require an Admin. A closure may not be reversed solely because the closer was not an Admin.[79] Alsee (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Alsee, I was not aware that the closure may not necessarily be an admin but by any uninvolved (key word) and experienced user (which is not the case here, as Ajñavidya voted), as clarified by Snow Rise ("it needn't be an admin, but ideally would at least be someone with experience sorting consensus conclusions from community discussions on contentious issues"). This does not justify the fact an involved user (who voted) closed the RfC and claimed consensus. To all other involved users, please keep in mind that Mathglot also opposed early closure. See this and Mathglot's "Very strongly opposed to any snow close ... I am firmly against any premature closure until the normal Rfc period has run its course, which if I'm not mistaken, is 18 August. I'm sure I appeared too late in the process for anything I say now to have any effect, but I feel it's important to get the data out there and on the record." There is no need to rush. Davide King (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alsee. Can you be more specific at to why you think an early closure is appropriate here? Looking at the RfC in question, it seems appropriately approached, has only been open a few days, and currently has a 6:6 support/opposition !vote ratio, including responses from regular editors of the article and fresh perspectives, with continuing engagement from new FRS contributions. So in pretty much every observable respect, this is the polar opposite of the narrow circumstances in which community standards authorize a WP:SNOW close.

Mind you, I'm open to the possibility that I missed something here (in part because I believe I recognize your name as an old hand in project spaces), but as a veteran editor you surely know that you need a better argument than "I think the premature close by an involved editor was flawed, but still would have resulted in the right conclusion." That's not sufficient cause to abrogate the usual WP:RfC/WP:Consensus standards and close the discussion when feedback is ongoing and has, thus far, not resulted in a concrete consensus. There's WP:NORUSH here, so why would we take the extraordinary action of shutting down an RfC, just a few days in, with an evenly split !vote, with feedback ongoing? We need a strong procedural argument for that beyond that you think it would result in the better outcome for the article, because that would very much beg the question and subvert our consensus building process. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Snow Rise I appreciate you recognizing me and, given how unreasonable my post must have seemed to you, phrasing your comment as respectfully as you did. There was a misunderstanding - we're both sorta right chuckle. There are TWO RFC's on that page. You appear to have looked at the bottom one, which is indeed closely split. The RFC at issue here is the top one. This one has been open a few days longer, but still admittedly short. My close analysis, if I were an uninvolved closer, goes like this: The initial low-information votes on the RFC were 2-Yes vs 3-No. I would give little weight to the first 5 votes. The next person posted a pile of sources. From that point on the RFC went 14-Yes vs 3-No, with a majority explicitly citing the posted evidence as conclusive. Basically the RFC ended the moment the evidence was posted. Regarding early closure, aside from the outcome already being clear, this is a high traffic active-event page. Readers are not being well served. The page is sitting on The wrong version because (in my opinion) the majority side are following polite Wikiquette while the minority side have (in my opinion) used dubious tactics to push whatever they want while the RFC is in progress. I'm tempted to edit the page to the majority version, but I am generally averse to editing any issue under active RFC. In this case I actively anticipate any majority-edit is likely to be warred as long as the RFC is open. Waiting a month basically allows the minority to stonewall the page until it (mostly) doesn't matter anymore. I normally take the long view of getting it right eventually, but there are a LOT of people currently reading this active event. Alsee (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, see I thought there must be some rational explanation for that incongruity! Please forgive my confusion on the matter: there was a lot of topical and procedural overlap on those two RfCs (including involved parties), so I was not able to discern from the forgoing discussion that it was the former rather than the latter RfC at issue--though in truth I should have looked for the reverted closure in the edit history anyway, as a matter of prudence. Anyway, thank you in kind for the courtesy and understanding of your own response, as well as for the clarification. I will have to review my comments above to make sure that the feedback provided remains germane with regard to all the specific, but thankfully at first blush I think my previous commentary (up until my immediately previous post to you) mostly applies equally as well to the former RfC as much as the latter, being rather generalized to some features they share in common. That said, and turning a more particularized eye to the correct RfC in question, with a current !vote of ~15:6, and only six days in, I'm still not sure that I would personally feel this is a case of SNOW: it's a borderline case, I feel, and I tend to err on the side of further discussion in those circumstances. But with appropriate context, your argument and perspective that it does in fact meet the burden certainly looks much, much more reasonable! Snow ^{let's rap} 01:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Textbook case of assuming bad faith:

The page is sitting on The wrong version because (in my opinion) the majority side are following polite Wikiquette while the minority side have (in my opinion) used dubious tactics to push whatever they want while the RFC is in progress.

Alsee, Did you really just say that? How about, the "minority side" has published actual data from a neutral query (including changing their vote afterward, based on the result), while the "majority side" has published nine highly non-representative sources supporting their viewpoint, not one of which appears in the top twenty results of a neutral, unbiased query. I have no illusions about how this Rfc will go, but your assertion about the motivations of anyone not agreeing with you is to be condemned. WP:DUE WEIGHT is policy; the "dubious tactics" at that Rfc are subverting due weight by concocting a set of WP:CHERRYPICKED sources that turns reality on its head. And cool your jets; this Rfc will be closed like any Rfc, when the time is right. And hopefully, only by an Admin. Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot (1) I stand by my statement (2) "dubious tactics" does not assume, assert, nor require bad faith (3) As far as I am aware you are entirely uninvolved in which version is currently displayed.
I welcome an admin closing this RFC, but as an experienced closer I see no reason it would require an Admin. Alsee (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Alsee. The truth is that I don't have experience closing RfC's. I was basing myself on WP:RFCCLOSE, which states in point 2: "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the {{rfc}} template." I wasn't aware that there were additional rules to the process further than those four listed there, and since the consensus became pretty obvious 3 days after the RfC was started, I thought I could proceed. This was not the case, and that's my bad. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated WP:BLP violations in the Zina Bash article.

• Zina Bash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See the recent article history. [80], and in particular the repeated addition of content like this. [81]

In brief, two contributors (User:TrueQuantum and User:Attic Salt) have been tag-teaming to insert content into the Zina Bash article, in contravention of WP:BLP. Since it has been made perfectly clear, in reliable sources already cited in the article, that claims that Bash made a 'white power' sign are based on nothing more than 4Chan conspiracy-theory trolling, the material being added, which implies that Wikipedia takes this nonsense seriously, is a gross violation. Further comments about Kavanaugh are likewise improper, given that they simply have no bearing on events that actually occurred, rather than on a particularly silly conspiracy theory.

Any responsible contributor would surely understand that if there is a dispute about possible WP:BLP violations, the proper course of action is to resolve the matter through dispute resolution. Since however those responsible have acted in the manner they did instead, I suggest that appropriate sanctions be taken against them.AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, when I asked you what specifically is the BLP violation that concerns you: [82], [83], you did not provide an answer: [84]. Attic Salt (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no 'I didn't like the answer I was given' exception to WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I should probably have also linked the earlier WP:BLPN discussion too - comments there seem relevant to assessing what happened later. [85] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for a week and will watch the talk page for a while. Let me know if the issue cannot be resolved with normal discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Trust me when I say that I do not want to be involved in this dispute. What first got my attention were complaints that Marquardtika was tendentiously editing Bash's page to such an extent that the editor was making attacks and accusations of sexual assault against other BLP subjects who accused Bash of making the controversial hand signal. This was particularly evident against another BLP subject Eugene Gu where Marquardtika overrode an RFC to put sexual misconduct accusations against him not only on Gu's page but also on Zina Bash's page as well. Upon further investigation I saw that Bash's page was edited in such a biased, non-neutral fashion that it looked more like a PR defense or reputation management for Bash than as an encyclopedia entry. I want us all to adhere to our policies in WP:BLP. My thoughts on this are simple. Either we discuss Bash's highly publicized hand signal during Kavanaugh's highly publicized confirmation hearing in a neutral way considering all reliable sources from all different angles or we nominate this article for deletion. We can't have a PR style reputation management entry for Bash because that undermines the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia. TrueQuantum (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

TrueQuantum, you have repeatedly added BLP-violating content to the article. Specifically, "It is unclear whether Bash made the hand signal to distract from Kavanaugh's controversial confirmation hearing." The reliable sources aren't ambiguous at all here. Vox says "Bash was not making a 'white power hand signal'" and called the incident "fake news." The Washington Post says "The idea that the hand sign is a secret symbol for white power owes its mainstream spread to a viral troll campaign aimed at making liberals and the media look gullible....The gesture is not considered a real hate symbol by organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League." If you want to nominate the article for deletion, go ahead. But you need to stop confusing our BLP policy with "PR." Marquardtika (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have not edited the article in any way other than enforcing the 3RR policy by reverting some of your contentious edits. Reverting your TE does not constitute "repeatedly adding" BLP violating content. I have not added anything to the article at all. I am simply trying to undo your TE and preserve the principles of neutrality that is central to our mission on Wikipedia. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, 3RR policy isn't 'enforced' by involved contributors adding (or restoring - the same thing, in this context) material to articles. It is enforced by taking violations of policy to an appropriate noticeboard, where an admin can, if necessary, impose sanctions on one or more of the involved parties. Though I think it is safe to assume that said admin will take due account on the explicit exemptions to WP:3RR rules which can apply when removing WP:BLP-violating content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Marquardtika, the New York Times source [86], which you keep removing, for example, here: [87], is more circumspect about whether or not Bash intended anything and whether or not the gesture is or is not offensive. We can't get into her mind, so the most that can be said is that there was an accusation. I don't know if Vox is actually considered to be a RS, but the Vox article you keep citing is clearly loaded with opinion. It is not as definitive as seem to suggest. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article you cite is a 2019 article about the evolution of the OK gesture. It's not particularly useful or accurate when discussing an incident that occurred in 2017. And no, we can't "get into her mind." But we can and we must identify conspiracy theories for what they are. She unequivocally did not "flash a white power sign." And we're certainly not going to say she was accused of such in the article without addressing the fact that, per the myriad reliable sources I've provided, that's a false accusation. Marquardtika (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Um, Marquardtika, the NYT article you keep removing notes that it is not always clear when the okay gesture is or is not intended to be offensive. In this respect, your quote, including mentioning the ADL, is not necessarily accurate. It is, at times, clearly used as a hate symbol. Attic Salt (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If you genuinely don't understand how edits like this are BLP violations, you need to stop editing biographies. That you are not comprehending that saying a Mexican Jewish woman was accused of flashing a white power symbol without providing any context about who was accusing her or how this came to be is problematic. The fact that sometimes the OK sign is used as a hate symbol does not mean that she used a hate symbol. The Washington Post is very clear that she gave an OK sign with her hand to a judiciary staffer after that staffer fulfilled a request to bring Kavanaugh a glass of water. We obviously need to be extremely careful about including any content that accuses someone of making a white power symbol. That is a serious and ugly accusation. It's a shame that several editors on the Bash page don't understand the BLP issues. Marquardtika (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Um, please don't personalise this discussion. The edit you cite this was not made by me. So why do you cite it here in responding to me? I'm all in favour of providing context, but the quote you keep presenting, asserting that the gesture is "not considered a real hate symbol" is simply false. That the WP article is simply wrong. The NYT article you keep removing makes that clear. I'm not suggesting that Bash used it as a hate symbol. In fact, I'm completely agnostic on that matter. Attic Salt (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

So it is your contention that The Washington Post is wrong? You might want to take that to WP:RSN. Marquardtika (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Truequantum, trying to defend a WP:BLP violation by making a personal attack on a contributor, entirely unaccompanied by any evidence, generally isn't considered a wise tactic. I'd recommend taking a little time to figure out how Wikipedia actually works (you've only been editing since the beginning of June) before making further comments. The question of what should or shouldn't go in the Bash biography (and indeed whether there should be one at all) can now be determined at more appropriate locations than WP:ANI, and if anything needs to be discussed on this noticeboard regarding what went on with the Eugene Gu article, it will need a new thread. Accompanied by actual evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation, AndyTheGrump. Please show me where I have made a personal attack on a contributor. I have simply laid out the evidence of what has occurred in the editing history. Furthermore, I recommend you refresh yourself on Wikipedia policies and our ethos. It does not matter if an editor has been here for 1 day or for 10 years. We do not undervalue the contributions and opinions from any editor regardless of how long they have been editing. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You have 'laid out' no evidence at all. Evidence, at WP:ANI, consists of links (e.g. diffs) to the relevant material, as posted by the person concerned. It doesn't consist of mere assertions that something or other happened. And no, it isn't a good idea to undervalue a contributor on the basis of how long they have been editing. It is however often relevant to how much allowance should be made for their evident lack of understanding of how things work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) NeneCaretaker (talk · contribs) and 66.190.166.205 (talk · contribs) are meat puppets or sock puppets, but they are all new accounts with a sudden and similar interest in Zina Bash. Marquardtika (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of personal attacks on contributors, this false accusation is utterly uncalled for. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The text "new accounts with a sudden and similar interest in Zina Bash" is completely accurate: TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) was created on 6 June 2021 and has 268 edits starting with their user page (permalink) while NeneCaretaker (talk · contribs) was created on 16 July 2021 and has 26 edits starting with their user page ("The red font for a blank user page is ugly" permalink). Regarding the issue of the article, TrueQuantum and NeneCaretaker have received the BLP discretionary sanctions notification and I will ensure that any BLP problems result in appropriate action. If anyone wants to oppose a sanction against those who came to Wikipedia to add fuel to an article, please speak up. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I'm surprised by your suggestion of sanctions. What, specifically, are you asking us to oppose? Certainly you are obliged to clearly state what you are proposing. More generally, I think the evidence you cite for a sockpuppet is flimsy. Why not request a CU to verify? Independent of that, TrueQuantum's behaviour has been both civil and well reasoned. I find Marquardtika's edits to be tedious and I view AndyTheGrump as a bully. Those are my thoughts. Attic Salt (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This is getting pretty ridiculous. I am being accused of making sockpuppet accounts (namely that of NeneCaretaker and 66.190.166.205 without any evidence whatsoever. Now there are threats of sanctions against me for trying to enforce our policies on neutrality? I would like other administrators to weigh in here because this seems patently unfair. TrueQuantum (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Which 'policies on neutrality' are you trying to 'enforce', and where do they state that a participant in a dispute should be 'enforcing' them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I second the call for a different administrator. Attic Salt (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course you do. But User:Johnuniq is a very experienced administrator and I, an even more experienced Aministrator, see no problems with the suggestion that any BLP violation after the discretionary sanctions alerts have been given may lead to sanctions. In fact, they should lead to sanctions. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please identify and cite the evidence used to justify a BLP violation and discretionary sanctions alert that AndyTheGrump placed on my talk page. I am concerned that rather than using this mechanism to protect our policies on Wikipedia, AndyTheGrump as an editor involved in this dispute is using the discretionary sanctions as a silencing tactic against me. Wikipedia is meant to be open to editors of all levels of experience and time spent here. I am highly unsettled and concerned by bullying from "experienced" editors that will degrade the quality of this encyclopedic resource. Why do I have discretionary sanctions and AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika do not? Please examine their contentious editing history and talk page comments regarding this issue. Fairness and objectivity should be values that administrators believe in. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You are not having discretionary sanctions 'used against you'. You are being notified that they exist. Experienced Wikipedians already know about them, and don't generally need such notifications, since they are already aware of them. I certainly was, and fully expect that if I ever violate the relevant Wikipedia policies, such sanctions will be applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The allegation that this BLP subject repeatedly made "white power" hand gestures at a deeply controversial, very public confirmation hearing never made much sense and has been clearly refuted. Supporters of racial justice and equality, which I hope includes all of us, should find better causes for their editing efforts than further promoting this allegation, which at this point is both a defamation and a digression. Actually, the interesting BLP question about this article is not whether we should "neutrally" report that something is possible where it obviously is not true, but whether this type of spurious but potentially life-destroying allegation against a non-prominent person should be included in a Wikipedia article at all. I have referred to this question elsewhere as the "allegations problem": when does an allegation that would otherwise not be worth mentioning, whether because it is untrue or (in other cases) because it is non-notable, need to be included because the making of the allegation itself became a public controversy. (Compare my comments here and the discussion problem here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, You seem to be rehashing things already said. Both TrueQuantum and I have stated that this article might be worthy of deletion. But I disagree with your quotation marks about neutrality. As long as the article exists, we should certainly strive for neutrality. I also disagree with your simple assertion that the allegation is "obviously not true". We don't know that, so let's stop saying things we don't know. Regarding "further promoting this allegation", no one here is promoting an allegation. I suggest you retract that comment as unhelpful (to say the least). And, finally, TrueQuantum requested "Please identify and cite the evidence used to justify a BLP violation". For clarity, your response, here, does not do that at all. Attic Salt (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this is symptomatic of a broader issue: the tendency of Wikipedia biographies of living persons (and articles in general, though that matters less) to become battlegrounds between contributors with opposing views, if there is any political context at all, and for such battleground behaviour to result in articles consisting of little more than a series of 'pro' and 'anti' sections based on marginal sourcing, chosen not to actually describe the subject biographically, but to score points. Not only is this a poor reflection on contributors, and on Wikipedia in general, but it is also an insult to readers, who I'd have to assume would rather read something less resembling the Somme after a particularly bad day. For the record, as a Brit, and thus as an outsider generally only observing US politicking from a distance, I had no recollection of knowing anything about Zina Bash before I saw the thread on WP:BLPN, and reacted to it not because I wanted to take sides, but because I saw what was so blatantly a violation of WP:BLP policy that I couldn't ignore it. As the few of you who have seen comments from me on a Wikipedia-criticism forum I participate in may have noticed (the rest of you will have to take my word for it), my own political views are about as far from those of the Trump administration, and its appointees etc, as could be imagined. If I were to pick sides, I'd be on the other side of the trenches. If my politics influenced my actions here at all (which is of course possible) it was probably because this insult to readers intelligence (to even describe it as a conspiracy theory suggests more coherence than it deserves) makes those pushing it look utterly idiotic, and consequently harms efforts to confront real-world racial bigotry from actual advocates of 'white power' etc. Real-world bigotry with real-world consequences. If people want to use Wikipedia as a political battlefield (which no doubt they always will, since being political is part of being human) they really need to use more subtle tactics than those employed here. 15:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

Hi Newyorkbrad, I would like to understand your points and arguments in good faith. I do agree with you that a "potentially life-destroying allegation against a non-prominent person" has no place on Wikipedia. That is why I have repeatedly said that if Zina Bash is only known for the hand signal controversy at Brett Kavanaugh's controversial hearing, then the entire article should be deleted. What I am adamantly against is using Wikipedia as a reputation management PR service for anyone. In fact, there seems to be three main possibilities for Zina Bash's OK hand signal:

1. It may be an innocuous OK hand gesture without any bad intent. There are reliable sources that state this perspective.

2. It may be a white power hand gesture with malicious and racist intent. There are reliable sources that state this perspective and cite individuals who have been fired from their jobs and disciplined after flashing this hand signal during media interviews.

3. It may have been a way to distract from Kavanaugh's controversial hearing where accusations of sexual assault were causing significant impediments. Reliable sources have stated this possibility as well and the Washington Post noted that even after the first uproar about the hand signal, Bash did it again.

I honestly do not know which of the above possibilities are true. Also, it is not my duty as an editor to determine which is true or to fight for any single narrative here. I believe that in the interests of neutrality we must cover what the reliable sources state about this incident and let the reader come to her or his own conclusion. We cannot pick and choose what reliable sources are "true" and what reliables sources are "false." What I believe to be a violation of our principles on neutrality is to only include the sources that state that the whole incident is a "conspiracy theory." That would make Bash's page appear to be more of a PR type reputation management service since Wikipedia articles, especially BLPs, often make it to the top of anyone's Google search. Wikipedia is not here to vouch for anyone nor to repair their reputations. Our job is to make sure that for BLPs we remain absolutely neutral. Since I do believe in the presumption of innocence and the tenets of due process, the most fair scenario here is to delete Bash's page. If the page is not deleted, then portray the incident with absolute neutrality. TrueQuantum (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

How to shoot yourself in the foot in one easy lesson: "I believe this article should be deleted, but rather than nominate it for deletion, I'm going to turn it into a battlefield instead". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your dismissive and derisive attitude here towards me. I gave an explanation citing my reasoning based on the available evidence and sources and you simply state "How to shoot yourself in the foot in one easy lesson" and accuse me of turning the article into a "battlefield." It would have been more appropriate for you to actually go through my arguments and rebut them based on the evidence and with your own logical reasoning. That's how I expect editors to conduct themselves when discussing issues on here with maturity. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

To quote what I said earlier, when I started this thread "Any responsible contributor would surely understand that if there is a dispute about possible WP:BLP violations, the proper course of action is to resolve the matter through dispute resolution". WP:ANI is not the proper place to engage in a content dispute. What is being discussed here is behaviour - specifically, the behaviour of a couple of individuals who, when it had already been made abundantly clear that the disputed content was considered by responsible and experienced editors to violate WP:BLP policy, continued to restore it to the article. You don't have to agree with other people assessments regarding WP:BLP policy. You are however expected to at least conform to the minimum standard of expected behaviour, and discuss issues over such content properly (asking for third-party comment etc if needed) rather than edit-warring it in to 'enforce' (your own word, used above [88][89]) your preferred version of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. If you are making accusations that I am violating BLP guidelines despite not actually writing anything into Bash's article at all (simply reverting Maquardtika's edit once and your edit once), I am supposed to not even discuss the topic whatsoever here and take the consequences of your accusations including discretionary sanctions without defending myself. If I defend myself in the proper forum and explain my reasoning, that to you is a violation. All of this is occurring in the setting of you and Marquardtika violating the 3RR policy. Tell me how this makes sense. Also, please cite the evidence for my BLP violation on Bash's article that justifies these accusations leading to possible BLP discretionary sanctions against me rather than against you and Marquardtika. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, and, again, when you were asked what the BLP violations that concerned you [90], [91], you refused to answer: [92]. Attic Salt (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking further into the history of the Zina Bash biography

Having looked at the history, I'd like to first state that this revert, [93] made by TrueQuantum, was absolutely in compliance with WP:BLP policy, and had I seen the material myself, would have done exactly the same thing - and quite likely pursued it further, at least to the extent of finding out who was responsible for originally adding it and asking them what the hell they thought they were doing. My endeavours to figure out who actually added have so far however been thwarted by the convoluted edit-warring that has taken place. The article history is a total mess, and reflects poorly on almost everyone concerned.

Going back to the origins of the article, one will readily observe that it has been abused as a political battleground right from the start, as competing factions alternately add their preferred spin to a facile troll-fuelled 'debate' over the position of the hands of someone sitting in the background of a Supreme Court conformation hearing. If it wasn't created for that express purpose in the first place, it might as well have been. If Wikipedia can't do better than this, it should maybe consider tightening the notability criteria for biographies of living persons further, to at least reduce the number of vacuous-battleground-biographies enough to enable less politically-motivated contributors to keep a better eye on whatever idiocy is being perpetrated on this self-proclaimed 'encyclopedia'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like AndyTheGrump is completely retreating from his call for an ANI. Attic Salt (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

What the heck is a 'call for an ANI'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You brought us here, but you have declined to provide evidence of BLP violations, see: [94]. Attic Salt (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that your interpretation of multiple Wikipedia policies (as shown here [95]) is clearly entirely at odds with mine, or indeed with more or less anyone I've seen who actually understands them (e.g. your suggestion that "Perhaps the only thing that is noteworthy enough to justify a Wikiarticle on Zina Bash is this accusation. If there is to be an article on her, then the accusation needs to be discussed. Though not in unrealistic terms, like whether or not it is debunked.") perhaps you might like to ask that question of the many other people who have responded here, who appear to agree with me. I very much doubt you'd take any notice of what I said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Topic bans

• Suggest topic banning both Attic Salt and TrueQuantum from BLPs. Their arguments here are ridiculous. They're edit warring to restore debunked claims about a living person flashing a white power sign and also removing the context of where those allegations came from. Attic Salt is playing dumb and pretending that they don't understand how that's a BLP violation. And TrueQuantum is pulling the "I was just enforcing the 3RR policy" card, which is irrelevant because we're responsible for any edit we restore. Neither editor has any business editing BLPs until they learn our policies. Woodroar (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support for Attic Salt (talk · contribs) only, as it is clear that they have an issue with BLP policy; but weak oppose for TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) because of their conduct at other BLPs, like their comments at Talk:Bill_Cosby#This_page_feels_heavily_subjective_and_biased_in_Cosby's_favor., Talk:Jimmy_Savile#RfC_about_Savile_as_a_child_molester, Talk:David_Gorski#Notability_Question, and Talk:CallMeCarson#Sexual_allegations_and_innuendo, is mixed at worst. But I would recommend at minimum a one-account restriction for TrueQuantum, if NeneCaretaker (talk · contribs) and 66.190.166.205 (talk · contribs) prove to be socks. I also see that they also violated WP:NOTFORUM by initiating Talk:Sex#Biological_Sex:_Binary_or_Spectrum, which points in the direction of a topic ban from human sexuality that may void the need for a BLP topic ban. (All their recent BLP edits focus on sexual abuse scandals.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

What issue do I have with the BLP policy? Attic Salt (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right — this seems to be an isolated incident, and the only problematic conduct on your behalf was on Zina Bash and its talk page; for instance, this edit to remove WP:PROMO from a BLP looks uncontroversial. Changing to oppose for you, but may still support a topic ban from Zina Bash from your previous comments there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Very confusing. I've asked several times what the controversial conduct was. Please provide diffs. Why is that so difficult? Attic Salt (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit reverted by Marquardtika (talk · contribs) and then reverted again by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) (after one round with TrueQuantum) is alleged to violate the BLP policy. You previously brought up a point about the sexual abuse allegations against Bash in January 2020, at Talk:Zina_Bash#January_2020_2, which was refuted by CWC (talk · contribs) and Marquardtika. I think at this point that this has descended into a content dispute where you are innocent that should have gone to WP:BLPN first (Bash has never been discussed other than this zero-reply thread by the creator), although TrueQuantum may still be problematic based on the evidence I presented. Thanks for telling me to address this more closely. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

And you really consider that edit to be so controversial that you contemplate a ban against me, specifically? Please don't complain about splinters in my eye. Attic Salt (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Rather than playing dumb, I think that Attic Salt truly does not yet understand a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia's BLP policy, which is that it is more important than most other policies, and more specifically that it is more important than otherwise basic content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. When talking about accusations made against historical figures who lived 2000 years ago, a comment like Nope. We are not at liberty to interpret accusations as being either true or false. Accusations can be made and denied. Proof, here, does not exist. [96] might be a perfectly legitimate interpretation of policy: we just report what historians are writing about the accusation, and we don't engage in our own research about whether the accusation was true or false. The person involved is long dead anyways, and what we write about it does not have any real-world impact apart from the accuracy of our information about ancient history. When talking about living persons, however, a completely different standard applies. For living persons, the question whether we do or do not repeat serious accusations made against them can have far-reaching real-life consequences. In these circumstances, it is not enough to consider whether what we report is objective, or whether it complies with what expert sources are telling us. For example, when it comes to serious allegations that are reported by reliable sources, but which nevertheless show some of the characteristics of gossip, we would report it without a second thought in the case of historical figures (the fact that objective historians are writing about it is proof enough of its notability, and everyone likes a bit of speculation on the personal lives of the ancients). In the case of gossip about living persons, however, we are required to ask ourselves whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Basically, if it is even remotely likely to be just gossip, mere allegations without any substantive form of proof, then the preferred course is to either not include it, or to write about it very sparingly (perhaps one sentence, e.g. if it is directly relevant to something else we're writing). It doesn't matter that in principle it could be true, that there is no evidence that it isn't true, that a number of reliable sources have reported on it, etc., etc. Our first goal in such a case is not to be objective, but to avoid being complicit in defamation. Now I'm fairly confident that Attic Salt just wasn't aware yet of the extra stringency we apply to BLP's (which, by the way, includes an exemption from 3RR), and that after the explanation I have just given they will understand and agree. If, however, that would turn out not to be the case, I would support a topic ban on BLP's until they do understand. As for TrueQuantum, I can't and won't comment on their understanding of BLP policy in other articles, but I note that they too elevated neutrality above BLP concerns in the case of the Zina Bash article, and that throughout this thread they have failed to understand the importance of these concerns. I think that also for TrueQuantum, a topic ban would be in order if they should not come to understand this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"[BLP] is more important than otherwise basic content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR."

Without necessarily disagreeing with some of your ultimate conclusions on content issues here, I'm going to have to push back against that statement, Apaugasma: WP:NPOV is a pillar policy of this project, and more or less by definition has a higher stature, in terms of over-arching community consensus formulated over the duration of this project, than does BLP, by a significant margin. And WP:OR is of course one of the primary outgrowths of that pillar policy explaining how we apply it in practice. Don't get me wrong, I very much support the precautionary principle which undergirds BLP, but it sometimes takes on a life of it's own in the hands of those who would like to excise content which they do not like with regard to living persons--even where good faith application of the standard WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT process clearly established an argument for inclusion. BLP was designed to work synergistically within the bounds of a policy of neutrality that is not meant to be abrogated under any circumstances, not to become a talisman that causes neutrality to be thrown out the window when we determine that information is sensitive in nature--which latter approach would be too vulnerable to abuse from POV pushers looking to sanitize articles on living but highly controversial figures.

That said, I do recognize that BLP has, as an informal cultural matter, grown into something of a standard held in greater regard than your average policy page, but as a structural matter regarding how this community has codified its priorities and over-arching community consensus on the most paramount concerns when deciding a content matter, no, WP:NPOV is not some "basic" policy which bows to BLP. Quite the opposite: in a theoretical context in which the two are in direct conflict (which in reality is almost never the case, because the nuance of both policies generally allows for threading the needle and the two being applied in concert), we would be expected by the highest level of community consensus to err on the side of neutrality. Of course, let me reiterate again, that in practice you and I might agree on the right content call in both the present circumstances as well as most others that potentially implicate both BLP and NPOV. But with regard to the statement I quote above, you are categorically incorrect as to which policy is meant to inherit the greater level of concern as a recognized fundamental policy of this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snow: Yes, I struggled to formulate that without causing offense. I am of course aware of WP:CRYBLP, and I hope I did not inspire anyone to misuse BLP policy in that way. But what I meant with NPOV being basic is precisely that it is "elementary, fundamental, essential", and when I said that BLP is even more important, it was very much in the specific context of this ANI report where I was trying to convey that when evaluating a specific edit, it does not matter that it seemingly complies with NPOV if it blatantly breaches BLP. Of course, when an edit blatantly breaches NPOV it also doesn't matter that it seemingly complies with BLP, but in practice this is just not often the direction of concern. You are right to say that BLP works within the bounds of NPOV, but even within that framework it generally does function as a kind of additional rule, and yes, it often does trump other concerns. This statement is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It is just a fact that, because BLP violations may have serious real-life consequences, we tend to be very sensitive about them, more so even than with edits violating our most fundamental content policies (God knows that more than half of the encyclopedia consists of those). As an additional 'check' type of rule, BLP is far less central and therefore in a way far less important than our core content policies, but when it comes to enforcing rules, we just tend to be far more strict on BLP, and in that way grant it more importance. Anyways, that's surely what's relevant here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a good summary of the situation, particularly when we consider your caveat that it is a descriptive rather than prescriptive description. That said, sometimes that is precisely a part of the concern for me: that the weight of BLP relative to other important policies and principles prioritized in the BLP context itself is sometimes out of proportion to the relative support in established community consensus. I sometimes think the community is long overdue to have an express discussion about this issue on a mass scale, to resolve it one way or the other. Either we should have some more explicit language so as to define the contours of BLP when it is in conflict with nominally more fundamental policies, or the ways in which it can permissibly abrogate those principles should be agreed upon by the community and expressed in policy. And I very much see arguments that appeal to me running in both directions, but at the end of the day there needs to be more clarity than presently exists. A lot of people just act from very impulsive a priori assumptions when a bit of sensitive information imputes BLP on a topic, and it often allows original research in via the back door. It's usually proscriptive OR (that is to say, an original research argument in support of keeping content out) rather than inclusive OR, but it's still not a workable standard like the more straightforward applications of WP:WEIGHT/WP:RS that govern most non-BLP content. But for now it's the best we have. Mostly we are able to manage in BLP areas because there's usually a strong consensus for or against inclusion of a particular piece. But it must be noted that more borderline BLP questions become some of the most fertile ground for both dispute and disruption because of BLPs strange, sometimes quixotic application and status. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I thank you for this explanation. I accept it and the BLP policies in general. I would have appreciated a clear explanation like this earlier on, rather than all the antagonism and arrogance that has bee directed my way. Attic Salt (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it extremely unsettling that both Attic Salt and I are under threat of a topic ban and/or other discretionary sanctions. Such drastic actions require detailed and specific evidence because these actions censor our views and contributions to an encyclopedic resource that is meant to be free and open to all editors in good faith. If I am to be subject to a topic ban on BLPs, I demand the specific violation(s) I have made and how each of these violations went against specific policies. I cannot be subject to a topic ban because of the articles that I choose to edit, which range from topics in physics to biology to mathematics to BLPs. If I believe in the tenets of WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME and seek to apply these policies to protect BLPs, I should not be punished for my good faith understanding of Wikipedia's policies even if other editors may disagree. Furthermore, I am unequivocally not NeneCaretaker nor am I IP user 66.190.166.205. Yet somehow I stand accused. I would appreciate a Check User action to verify this. In summary, I am very concerned with how Attic Salt and I are being treated here. It's beyond chilling that we are subject to sanctions based on vague accusations without specific evidence to back them up. It would be extremely troubling for editors who have many years of experience here on Wikipedia to form a clique because of the age of their accounts and to gang up on newer editors like myself. To then apply sanctions or even the threat of sanctions is anathema to the spirit and ethos of an open source encyclopedia. TrueQuantum (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Does you 'good-faith understanding' of WP:BLP now extend to an understanding that when multiple experienced editors state that material you are adding or restoring to an article contravenes the policy, the correct way to proceed, if you disagree with that assessment, is to try to resolve the matter through discussion (including if necessary formal dispute resolution etc) rather than adding or restoring it again? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I share TrueQuantum’s disgust with how this has unfolded. Attic Salt (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Attic Salt, samequestion for you: does you 'good-faith understanding' of WP:BLP now extend to an understanding that when multiple experienced editors state that material you are adding or restoring to an article contravenes the policy, the correct way to proceed, if you disagree with that assessment, is to try to resolve the matter through discussion (including if necessary formal dispute resolution etc) rather than adding or restoring it again? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Andy,your behaviour here has been horrible. I’m not interested in interacting with a bully. Attic Salt (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure those wishing to determine how best to proceed further will take your non-response to a perfectly reasonable question into consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that nobody is addressing the bullying behavior from editors AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. So far they have accused me of being NeneCaretaker and 66.190.166.205 without any evidence nor CU action. They have attacked my character repeatedly as well as my intentions. Furthermore, the administrators involved so far have only been piling on by threatening sanctions against me and Attic Salt while giving a free pass to AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. I sincerely hope that Wikipedia has not become an insular group of editors and administrators who give favoritism to those they know or those whose accounts are older while discriminating against newer accounts like myself. TrueQuantum (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At no point have I accused you of being NeneCaretaker or 66.190.166.205. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@TrueQuantum: I agree that WP:BITE may have been a concern here (@AndyTheGrump: please do try to take it easy). However, the accusations are not vague. They're simply that this edit and this one reinstated what other editors had identified as a BLP violation without waiting for the discussion about this to end. This is not acceptable, and demonstrates that you do not yet sufficiently understand the gravity of BLP violations. Even if there is just a possibility of an edit violating BLP policy, it should be extensively discussed before being reinstated. If you simply acknowledge this and promise to take this into account in the future, I'm fairly sure that no action will be taken. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for actually pointing out what the potential violation is and what policy it violates. I did in fact discuss the BLP issues in the talk page for Zina Bash way in advance of reverting Marquardtika's edit. Not only that, but furthermore I pointed out on Marquardtika's talk page that I identified contentious editing and politely asked the editor to refrain. The talk page discussion was as follows: "I saw you put in accusations of sexual assault against Eugene Gu in your edit to Zina Bash's BLP. Upon further investigation I saw that you were aggressively editing Gu's BLP to include accusations of sexual assault that a unanimous RFC forbade. Please refrain from tendentious editing and look up our policies on WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Maybe Eugene should have looked up the BLP policies before he used his public platform to falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol. As for the accusations of sexual assault, it's right there in the reliable source: "Eugene Gu, a prominent anti-Trump doctor who recently made news when he was accused of sexual assault..." Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC) Okay. Seeing as how Gu isn't a Wiki editor, it's strange to say that he should have looked up the BLP policies. Sounds like you have an axe to grind against Gu that makes you ignore RFC consensus and then attack him in Zina Bash's Wikipedia page to get revenge on him using his "public platform" to "falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol." I highly recommend you refresh yourself on the 5 pillars and WP:BLP policies. Please discontinue the tendentious editing that is clearly motivated by feelings of retaliation and desire for retribution. TrueQuantum (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)." I made repeated attempts to reach out and discuss on the talk page before resorting to reverting what I believed to be TE. If I made an error in this case, then it was unintentional and I will take it as a learning point and lesson. I hope that Marquardtika and AndyTheGrump can similarly learn lessons on Wikipedia policies and civil behavior so that we can have a better community here. TrueQuantum (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The crucial difference is that after Marquardtika got reverted on the Eugene Gu article, they did continue to discuss a bit on the talk page, but they did not reinstate the edit without getting consensus to do so. Likewise, after you reverted them at the Zina Bash article, they discussed a bit with you on their talk page but they did not reinstate the edit. I do think it rather questionable that they incorporated the sexual assault allegation against Gu in the Zina Bash article just two days after their inclusion of it in Gu's own article was reverted, though as they write on their talk page, the allegation against Gu is specifically noted in the Vox article we are using on Zina Bash. Anyways, the important thing is that when editors identify BLP violations, they should not be reinstated without a thorough consensus, and they can in some cases even be reverted beyond 3RR. This is not always an obvious point for newish editors to catch on to, but I guess that learning it the hard way is also one form of learning it. :-P Thanks for your attention, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

To piggyback on Apaugasma's very useful advice here, I would recommend that you take a look at WP:BRD, if you are not familiar with, or to review it even if you are--and when doing so, consider every note of caution with regard to the principle of discussing before acting to have a particular vitality in the context of BLP. Mind you, when it comes to the tone of the discussion itself, I believe you acted in a civil and measured fashion, and I intend to note that in an !vote below. However, the edit warring here never should have taken place. The burden was upon you and Attic Salt to achieve consensus for these changes once they were reverted, and you skipped that rather principal step. In the future, where things are looking rather intractable, you should consider soliciting additional perspectives through a process such as WP:RfC rather than resorting to attempting to get the content in by brute force of redundant edits: that approach will never work in your favour. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fairly strong oppose. The behaviour here is limited to a one-time instance as far as has been presented (absent a trivial WP:NOTAFORUM violation, but in any event both excuseable in a newer user) and frankly (though I would support a different view) their content arguments are not wholecloth without merit. The proposed sanction is way out of proportion with actionable behaviour here (if any), given that at least one of these editors has pretty clearly recognized shortcomings in their approach and assumed the appropriate attitude that their approach to these situations must adjust. Blocks are administered for purely preventative purposes, not punitive statements, even where we might find the content in dispute objectionable in some respect. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not Andy's bringing the issue here was appropriate--I assume for argument here that it was--we have already achieved an acceptable approach in that the editors have evidenced no suggestion of a more disruptive pattern (at least that I have seen submitted here), and seem not to object to adjusting their approach to community expectations. So long as we have no reason to expect duplicity, I see no reason not to AGF as to their intent and give them the benefit of the doubt as to their ability to adjust.

There's also the fact that, upon reviewing the discussions in full, I actually think there is reason to feel they handled themselves fairly appropriately and with restraint in those discussions. Andy frankly was showing so much WP:BITE there from word go, I would say it was verging into uncollaborative discussion. This is, if my memory recalls correctly, something that has brought Andy to this board more than once in the past, and has certainly, looking at his block log, something close to behaviour that has earned him blocks in the past, so maybe if there is an editor who does have a pattern worth noting here, it is not the two named in the complaint. Not that I'm arguing for sanction for anybody here. But weighing the behaviours of TrueQuantum and Attic Salt in the light of the dispute and taking into account their responses here, I don't see a good argument for sanction, let alone something as severe as the proposed T/PBAN. If there's any lingering concern, it is that Attic Salt has not been quite as forward in owning up the edit warring as has TrueQuantum. I also advise the parties to RfC this issue if they can't resolve it any other way (unless the standing consensus is already pretty substantial and recently arrived at, in which case the issue should be left alone for a time), though if I am perfectly blunt, I can't imagine TrueQuantum and Attic Salt can prevail on this editorial question in any discussion that pulls in a substantial number of experienced editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Partial blocks. Per all the above, and noting especially the aggressiveness of TrueQuantum in the discussion, I have blocked TrueQuantum and Attic Salt indefinitely from Zina Bash and its related talkpage. I don't mean to close the discussion; other sanctions, such as topic bans or sock puppet investigations, may well still be on the table. Bishonen | tålk 08:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC).

I would like to know why and how Bishonen can just unilaterally apply a sanction on me without further discussion with other editors as it seemed the discussion above was about how sanctions are preventative and not meant to be punitive. I very much desire to make positive contributions to Wikipedia and strongly oppose being censored like this. If an uninvolved administrator or editor can help me apply for an appeal I would very much appreciate it. I don't believe in censorship and hope that this community does not believe in silencing users. Furthermore, I find it highly unusual that Bishonen interprets my behavior as aggressive and threatens even more sanctions that are "on the table" while willfully ignoring the rather bullying behavior of AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. I really hope for there to be a semblance of objectivity and balance here. Is this how administrators treat conflicts between older and newer editors? TrueQuantum (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

How is it that a seven-week old account with under 300 edits is so confident about procedures at Wikipedia? When two established editors started removing what they said were WP:BLP violations at Zina Bash, did you ask anyone for an explanation? At your talk, some kind advice "to be self-reflective" was dismissed diff with "Demanding that I be self-reflective ... is very chilling to me." That is not the way to succeed at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

TrueQuantum, most sanctions are put in place "unilaterally", by a single admin, at their sole discretion, and that's what I did. A partial block from one article and its talkpage is an extremely narrow sanction, which leaves you free to edit the rest of Wikipedia, so you have hardly been "silenced" by it. Nor am I "threatening" "even more sanctions"; I merely point out that suggestions for other sanctions have been made above, and therefore it's not time to close this section yet. I myself have no opinion on these potential other sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 11:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC).

I believe this egregiously goes against the spirit of WP:BITE, especially the comment "How is it that a seven-week old account with under 300 edits is so confident about procedures at Wikipedia?" Moreover, when Marquardtika accused me of being a "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" in violation of the policy "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" rather than admonishing the editor or recognizing the violation of WP:BITE I was piled on by other administrators including Bishonen who calls it an ongoing investigation. Why is it that established editors can violate Wikipedia policies with impunity while newer editors like myself are treated with hostility and even sanctions? I am currently researching how to perform a proper appeal with a complete understanding of all the policies that I believe were violated. It will take some time for me to do this, but you all will hear from me soon once I am prepared and can launch a strong defense and bring to light what has occurred here to me and Attic Salt, who has sadly decided to leave Wikipedia because of all of this. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:VNHRISHIKESH

User:VNHRISHIKESH already has a rather problematic editing history, with in a month one so far successful article creation, and 10 or so failed ones (mostly deleted, some draftified). This includes things like moving Paracelsus to Philips Paracelsus, a name not used anywhere else. They received warnings for the use of their user page for promotion, copyright violations, and general disruption.

On 13 July, they asked for protection of their user page and talk page[97] to preserve it from vandalism. Neither page had ever been vandalized, and the request was swiftly rejected[98].

Today, an IP appears[99], makes two vandal edits to All, and then makes the most gentle of vandal edits ever to VNHRISHIKESH's user talk page[100][101]. The IP then stops editing, and 3 minutes later our editor reappears and again asks for protection[102] (the last edited three minutes before the very short-lived vandal IP appeared). To put the icing on the cake, both the editor and the IP turn out to be from south Kerala.

Vandalizing Wikipedia to get your user page and talk page protected must be among the more stupid things I have seen here, but coupled with the waste of time this editor has turned out to be otherwise for most of their edits, I don't think they should stay around for much longer. (Oh, as an aside, with IP masking in place this would have been a lot harder to check of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Though I generally agree that this user may not be ready yet to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, from their personal website they link to at their user page it appears that they are a young editor, and I don't feel that the tone of the report above reflects that very well. Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, can we please block VNHRISHIKESH until they have some more competence and maturity? Since the above, they have given a rather confusing reply[103] with some clarification afterwards[104]: so apparently they claim that they got logged out, vandalized All[105] and again after being reverted[106], then immediately vandalized and undid this at their own talk page[107]: and then not only did they again log in 3 minutes later, but they saw those last two edits and didn't realise they had made those edits and called for protection[108].

And then they started moving their poor articles, which were draftified by a range of editors (including me), back to the mainspace, creating stuff like Factors affecting Temperature distribution (again draftified by me now). You can look at this article at the time of redrafticiation[109] for yourself, note how this article on temperature distribution on Earth starts with a graph of the average body temperature of humans throughout the day, as if that graph has anything to do with the subject.

An editor who one the one hand vandalizes articles to get their user page protected, and on the other hand produces such rubbish articles, is an editor we can do without. If age is a factor, then they can come back once they have matured a lot. Fram (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Once more, I agree that VNHRISHIKESH has a serious competence issue (they're already extended confirmed and I'm not sure if they even made one edit that is genuinely helpful), but from all that I can see it is in extremely good faith, and it should be dealt with accordingly. I'm not sure if mentorship really is a thing here (I know that I don't have the time for that), but if no mentor is willing to step up we may indeed need an indefinite block. I just wish we had some kind of procedure to kindly tell off young users who if they would come back in five or ten years time would very likely make great editors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, everyone Here is VNHRISHIKESH. I understood that you're going to block me from editing. I think you did't notice my whole edits in this encyclopaedia. I think that my edits were perfect and I can say that I have a competitive mind and maturity. So please don't block me from editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VNHRISHIKESH (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indef. The combination of "I think that my edits were perfect" with a clear state of imperfection does not show any possible scope for improvement.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Block Indefinitely - Whilst it appears highly likely that this user is fairly young, and we have all suffered from the foolishness of youth at some point in our lives, that does not alter the fact that an increasing amount of time and effort has been spent in tidying up after them; especially so when they are (almost certainly) deliberately wasting people's time by vandalising their own talkpage in order to get it protected for some reason. To be frank, competence is required; block until they can return and contribute positively (which is likely to be in several years time...). --Jack Frost (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This user created a stub called "Pigments in Leaves", which was quickly draftified. They expanded it (with homework-assignment-like prose), and it was declined, twice. They then unilaterally moved it into mainspace without modifications. Oh, and Factors affecting Temperature distribution is somehow live in mainspace again. I lack the inclination to sort out the edit history there. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• And then today, they created this, which was soon after draftified of course. It now looks like this. Fram (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just in case it wasn't clear from my comments above, we need an indefinite block for this editor (though not a community ban!); we just need someone or somehow to do it gently. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Block, regretfully. This seems like a textbook case of Competence is required. They're obviously trying to edit in good faith, but the complete lack of understanding of core policies like notability and verifiability, combined with issues relating to content forking, unencyclopaedic writing and being unwilling to listen to advice from much more experienced editors means that their contributions are simply becoming a massive time sink. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:CIR; too much ongoing work in cleaning up their messes and handling frivolous requests. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

BLP violations about Mark Skousen

At [110] an IP has stated that Mark Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon, and did not provide a WP:RS for their claim when asked, repeatedly. They are past level 4 warning for WP:BLP violations. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The evidence was provided repeatedly that he was involved with fringe groups in the religion, which is the original statement that tgeorgescu demanded. After providing that evidence, this user began harassing me and making threats of reporting on both that thread and my personal talk page, despite me providing the evidence they asked for. They falsely kept claiming that I had not. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

How about a verbatim quote from a WP:RS which explicitly shows that Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon? You were asked repeatedly to provide a WP:RS for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You asked specifically for evidence that he was involved with fringe groups. It was provided. Only then did you attempt to move the goalposts, and started spamming my page with warnings as threats, as well as spamming the talk page on the noticeboard with threats and false claims that no evidence had been provided. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That's what you claimed: Please note that tgeorgescu falsely represented someone involved with fringe groups of the religion as a "Faithful Mormon," ... This means you have explicitly denied that he is a faithful Mormon. Provide evidence for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You asked specifically for proof that he was involved with fringe groups as the basis of the claim. I provided exactly what you asked for. You yourself based whether or not that claim met BLP criteria on whether such evidence was provided. Only then did you attempt to move the goalposts and change what had been requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At [111] I wrote You denied that he is a devout Mormon, you have to provide evidence for it. No compromise is possible. Don't tell me that you have not read my message, since you have replied directly below it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That was only after you attempted to move the goalposts. When I first posted the claim, your actual response was "According to WP:BLP, you have to provide evidence for him being in the fringe groups of the religion ASAP." Which is exactly what I did. So your later attempts to move the goalposts and threats of reporting are a clear attempt at harassment and intimidation. I will now no longer respond to you until admins get involved, as I have already decisively shown that you moved the goalposts and lied about what was actually requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At [112] I wrote the following: "You called Mark Skousen someone involved with fringe groups of the religion without evidence (guilt by association isn't evidence: I mean, he could be wrong, be he still is a devout LDS Church member)." Did not read that, either? I have corrected my typo at [113], before you had replied to it. You have also replied to Let me put it this way: many Catholics have false beliefs, but as long as they are not outright heretical, the Pope has no business chastising their false beliefs. from [114]. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Admins, take note that tgeorgescu is once again attempting to move the goalposts after the fact. The quote they just gave was responded to with one showing that it was not guilt by association, that continuing to openly advocating for the beliefs of the group decades after that has been disavowed and warned is in fact involvement with the group. Tgeorgescu did not dispute this, but then switched to their goalpost moving and warning spamming, while changing the question from then on to be specifically not be about that portion of the statement. They maintained that line of reasoning on this noticeboard. And now, in the middle of it, they switched back again, even though the sequence of their statements and comments is openly available for all to see and thoroughly proves their moving of the goalposts and changing of what they claim to have requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You have provided this source: https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ Therein is simply Mark Skousen appearing on Glenn Beck's show in order to speak about the book written by Mark's uncle. No mention of any fringe groups involving Mark, in fact there is absolutely no mention of any group Mark would belong to. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is once again openly lying. The article specifically mentions that the book was published as advocacy for a disavowed foundation. Calling on the group leader's nephew to present that advocacy decades after the disavowal is evidence of that nephew's involvement with the group. I am done for the night, I can take no more today of tgeorgescu's constant lying, moving of goalposts, harassment, and knowingly and verifiably false attempts at intimidation. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

How about a verbatim quote from https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ ? Prove me wrong, for all to see! Provide a quote wherein https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ says that Mark Skousen belongs to any group (fringe or not, but we're especially interested in fringe groups).

He surely belongs to several groups, but the given source does not claim that Mark would belong to any of the groups mentioned in it. Perhaps he does, but your source never stated that he does.

So, the claim that he belongs to any group (fringe or otherwise) is not verifiable in the source you gave us. If you think otherwise, provide a verbatim quote showing that I'm wrong.

Your source does not even verify that Mark is a Mormon (faithful or otherwise), let alone that he would belong to any of the groups mentioned in the article. And it certainly does not verify the claim that Mark was chastised by the LDS Church. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Tgeorgescu

tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in an extensive campaign of harassment against me today. While I was involved in a dispute with another user over some NPOV violations that they insisted on including in the Prosperity Theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology) article, this user spammed my personal talk page with warnings and accusations of being a paid poster. While I was busy creating the section on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology) that they demanded I create, they did this multiple times, and also then posted the accusation on the talk page. Once I had finished creating that section on the talk page, I responded with the information that I am not a paid poster and their accusation was false. They then joined in on the talk page harassing me and making numerous personal attacks on me alongside the user I had originally responded to. Even after another user that I do not know joined the talk to concur with my reasons for the removal of the section and its violation of NPOV, tgeorgescu kept making personal attacks, accusing me of attempting to censor criticism of my religion despite me repeatedly stating my support of leaving in sections of the linked article that didn't violate Wiki rules, and making false claims that no evidence had been provided. After a back and forth, this user finally opened a section on the neutral point of view noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard), and then immediately resumed personal attacks and false claims about me there after another editor there concurred with my reasons for disputing the inclusion of the specific section in the Prosperity Theology article. As I responded to their attacks and false claims in that thread, tgeorgescu began once again spamming my personal talk page with numerous different warnings, a clear form of harassment and attempt at intimidation. No other user supported them while they were doing this on the NPOV noticeboard, but they kept repeatedly responding to me with insults, accusations, and different warnings and threats to report on my personal talk page. This behavior is extreme and unacceptable, and I request that admins take action to halt it immediately. I fully admit that I insulted this user in response to their personal attacks on me, but it was always in response to their personal attacks, insults, and repeated false accusations and harassment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:300:13f:848a:7df8:a2c8:e34 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your claims, e.g. for the claim that Mark Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon. I have repeatedly warned you because you were making unverifiable statements about a living person without providing any evidence that he isn't a faithful Mormon. See WP:BLP. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You demanded evidence to support the claim that Mark Skousen is involved with fringe groups of the religion. That is specifically what you asked for. I provided it. Only then did you start tonight's segment of your sapamming of my talk page with warnings and of the noticeboard talk page with threats to report and knowingly false claims that I hadn't provided any evidence. It's there for all to see. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You have explicitly denied that Mark Skousen is a faithful Mormon. You still did not provide any WP:Verifiable source for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I already provided the evidence that he is involved with fringe groups that you requested as the basis for that claim. Once I provided that evidence, only then did you attempt to move the goalposts and claim that's actually not what evidence was requested or required. I will no longer respond to you here until admins get involved, as you keep repeating this pattern of knowingly falsely claiming that I didn't provide what you requested, as a form of harassment and intimidation. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At [115] I wrote You denied that he is a devout Mormon, you have to provide evidence for it. No compromise is possible. Don't tell me that you have not read my message, since you have replied directly below it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu is now spamming the same comment on multiple posts, and it has already been addressed. This came significantly after they responded to the intitial claim with "According to WP:BLP, you have to provide evidence for him being in the fringe groups of the religion ASAP." Which is exactly what I did. So this user's later attempts to move the goalposts and threats of reporting are a clear attempt at harassment and intimidation. I will now no longer respond to this user until admins get involved, as I have already decisively shown that they moved the goalposts and lied about what was actually requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At [116] I wrote the following: "You called Mark Skousen someone involved with fringe groups of the religion without evidence (guilt by association isn't evidence: I mean, he could be wrong, be he still is a devout LDS Church member)." Did not read that, either? I have corrected my typo at [117], before you had replied to it. You have also replied to Let me put it this way: many Catholics have false beliefs, but as long as they are not outright heretical, the Pope has no business chastising their false beliefs. from [118]. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, admins, tgeorgescu is spamming the same thing in different places, and actively moving the goalposts. The quote they just gave was responded to with one showing that it was not guilt by association, that continuing to openly advocating for the beliefs of the group decades after that has been disavowed and warned is in fact involvement with the group. Tgeorgescu did not dispute this, but then switched to their goalpost moving and warning spamming, while changing the question from then on to specifically not be about that portion of the statement. They maintained that line of reasoning on this noticeboard. And now, in the middle of it, they switched back again, even though the sequence of their statements and comments is openly available for all to see and thoroughly proves their moving of the goalposts and changing of what they claim to have requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu, I agree with LindsayH that both GenoV84 and yourself were treating this IP editor with undue aggression. Being an LDS adherent is not a conflict of interest. Also, people still use WP:NPOVN? How eclectic. El_C 05:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: After the IP stated they do not do paid edits, I no longer pursued that lead. But in fact the whole dispute is Mormon in-fighting. The professor who stated that Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids is a faithful Mormon. So, in fact a Mormon thinks that another Mormon is libelous about Mormonism.
• And we simply got irritated by the amount of hubris from IP's talk page statements. They insisted they are absolutely right and we are absolutely wrong. They called us So you are fools, and also outright liars, if you attempt to dispute that. These were not bona fide attempts at WP:CONSENSUS, but they made clear that it is their way or the highway.
• The whole point of IP's edits is to show that Mark Skousen is a heretic and a slanderer of the LDS Church. It is a smear campaign, if we are to call a spade a spade. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu, acting aggressively toward someone repeatedly would have that effect. I'm not saying it's optimal conduct, but it isn't one-sided, either. Anyway, you call it a "smear campaign" — is there a way for you to verify that without the need for an outside reviewer to wade through walls of text? El_C 06:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: At [119] they provided a (1, one) source for their claim that Mark Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon, in its turn that was a claim made at [120]. The provided source is https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ . This source does not verify that Mark is a faithful Mormon, it does not verify that he is an unfaithful Mormon, it does not verify that he is a Mormon, it does not verify that he was chastised by the LDS Church, it does not verify that he belongs to any of the groups mentioned in this source. I have repeatedly asked them for a source that would verify their claims. I have asked them for verbatim quotes. They have never provided any other source for their claims.
• To put it bluntly, this is all the information about Mark from this source:

• In March, with the new book available, Beck invited Skousen's nephew Mark onto his Fox show, where the two men discussed splitting up the United States. (Mark would later say that between commercials, Beck told him that a friend had sent him "Leap" and that the book "changed his life.")

  — Alexander Zaitchik, Meet the man who changed Glenn Beck's life

• Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• There is not evidence of me running a smear campaign, because tgeorgescu is being openly disingenuous here. TGeorgescu only brought up the Mark Skousen angle and made up from thin air the claim that this was all more in-fighting after significant other harassments and personal attacks by them and GenoV84, and attempted to use it as a derailing after another user on the NPOV noticeboard agreed that the inclusion of the disputed section was problematic. TGeorgescu then responded with " Please note that the guy who stated Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids is a cheerfully libertarian professor of economics and a faithful Mormon. So, IP's ire is towards one of their own. It seems like in-group fighting." this is the first time that Tgeorgescu has introduced this opinion in the entire conversation throughout the day. I saw it for what it clearly was, a clear attempt at derailing after their opinion had already been rebutted by other editors who hadn't been involved firsthand in the initial dispute like Tgeorgescu was. Also disingenuous, as it tried to present the individual in question as a "faithful Mormon," as if he represented the mainstream views of the church, and seemed to be intentionally obscuring the fact that he is affiliated with fringe groups that have openly been disavowed and warned by the LDS church. So I responded to that by pointing out what tgeorgescu was misrepresenting, and that's when they demanded evidence. I provided evidence. They initially attempted to dispute parts of it as evidence, but they dropped that after a few posts.

• The article in question does in fact mention in different sections that the book Mark Skousen was advocating to Glenn Beck was initially made specifically as advocacy for a group lead by Mark's uncle that the LDS Church disavowed and warned. TGeorgescu is also lying in saying that they repeatedly asked for a source after this to verify Mark's involvement in fringe groups. Tgeorgescu instead suddenly changed to personally accusing me of smearing Mark with the words "faithful Mormon," the same words Tgeorgescu had used in the comment that this was a response to. That's a clear moving of the goalposts after I provided evidence. I did not engage with his further demands and threats that I immediately provide a source specifically with the "faithful Mormon" term or else get reported, even as they continued to spam my personal talk page with a whole heap of various different warnings and claiming it was based on me smearing Mark Skousen. I was not going to play along with someone who had already harassed me vigorously and personally attacked me repeatedly suddenly switching the goalposts as a means of deflection

• Once that occurred, they then changed what they had previously been saying and suddenly started spamming my personal talk page with multiple different warnings and accusing me both there and on the NPOV board of personally smearing Mark Skousen. Their strategy changed back and forth several times. Now we see that tgeorgescu has recently asserted "The whole point of IP's edits is to show that Mark Skousen is a heretic and a slanderer of the LDS Church. It is a smear campaign, if we are to call a spade a spade." This was newly invented by them in the last hour, and is easily debunked by reading through the earlier portions of the talk page on both Prosperity Theology and on the NPOV board. I made clear from the beginning that portions of the article that didn't violate NPOV and that didn't attempt to pass off unsupported opinion as fact were perfectly fine remaining in the article. Somehow, more than six hours later, tgeorgescu decided to make Mark Skousen as an individual the crux of the entire thing, after plenty of back and forth clearly showing that wasn't the case, and I hadn't brought up his status in the LDS Church at all up to the point, instead focusing mainly on how the quote from him was presented in the Wiki article as if it were evidence-based, when it was in fact pure opinion. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• So, what are you waiting for? Provide the verbatim quote which proves me wrong. You can't, because I have already quoted everything that source wrote about Mark Skousen. And none of it verifies any of your claims about him. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• I already summarized the parts that you openly lied weren't there. So here are some of them verbatim, spread out in different parts of the article. "Before he died in 2006 at the age of 92, Skousen's own Mormon church publicly distanced itself from the foundation that Skousen founded and that has published previous editions of "The 5,000 Year Leap." "Skousen was unbowed. In 1971, he founded the Freeman Institute, a research organization devoted to the study of the super-conspiracy directed by the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. (The institute later changed its name to the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which has offices in Malta, Idaho, and continues to publish Skousen's books, including Glenn Beck's favorite work of history, "The 5,000 Year Leap.")

• By the end of the 1970s, the death of Skousen's biggest allies within the Mormon church hierarchy cleared the way for an official disavowal of his work. In 1979, LDS church president Spencer W. Kimball issued an order to every Mormon clergyman in the U.S. stating "no announcements should be made in Church meetings of Freemen Institute lectures or events that are not under the sponsorship of the Church. [This] is to make certain that neither Church facilities nor Church meetings are used to advertise such events and to avoid any implication that the Church endorses what is said during such lectures."

• "In March, with the new book available, Beck invited Skousen's nephew Mark onto his Fox show, where the two men discussed splitting up the United States. (Mark would later say that between commercials, Beck told him that a friend had sent him "Leap" and that the book "changed his life.")" Anyways, I need to get some sleep now, so it will be a while before my next post of any type on this thread. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Friend, you're seeing things which are not there: the information about Mark's uncle is not applicable to Mark himself. He is not his uncle. The source does not claim that Mark is part of any of the groups mentioned therein. The source does not even claim that Mark is a Mormon. The source never claims that Mark was chastised by the LDS Church.
• The source does not mention Mark's religion. It does not mention any relationship between Mark and the LDS Church, be it belief or disbelief, approval or chastisement. It does not mention any group Mark belongs to.
• Conflating Mark with his own uncle is called WP:FRANKIE. I asked for WP:Verifiable information about Mark Skousen, not cock and bull stories about conflating him with his own uncle.
• This is a WP:CIR problem in regard to reading a written text. I don't know why this is a problem, since there are many free text to speech engines available. Why is this a problem? Because you have been smearing Mark for several hours and you still did not recant. Don't you think that unfaithful Mormon is a smear? It certainly violates WP:BLP if you do not WP:CITE evidence to that extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• While I disagree with your tone towards the IP, let me just say this - if they read the source that they provided, they would realise that the article is referring to Willard Cleon Skousen, not Mark Skousen. This is something called WP:SYNTHESIS. MiasmaEternal^TALK 08:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• @MiasmaEternal: I think they do not have a great ability of reading with comprehension. Either that or they are intentionally vexatious.
• Why the tone? The IP depicts themselves as having done nothing wrong, not even the smallest mistake, and me and another editor which reverted and criticized them as purposefully violating the rules of Wikipedia in order to smear the LDS Church (in fact, the IP, who is a member of the LDS Church claims that another member of the LDS Church smears the LDS Church).
• They also made the preposterous argument that only early conclusions are reliable and all later conclusions should be discarded, meaning all my statements made a hour or more after their initial edit are to be discarded: This was newly invented by them in the last hour... Somehow, more than six hours later, tgeorgescu decided to make Mark Skousen as an individual the crux of the entire thing... That a statement could be both new (recent) and true did not cross their mind. Oh, wait... isn't Joseph Smith a rather recent prophet? tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• So this whole argument seemed to have started with an addition to Prosperity gospel which incorrectly (and with copyvio, which I've removed) asserted that Harper's had called Mormon financial teachings "the protestant work ethic on steroids." In fact Harpers didn't say that, Mark Skousen did. (I've removed that, too; no objection to something actually correct being added back in.) The IP objected to quoting Skousen on Mormonism, calling him at a noticeboard not a devout Mormon, then supported that assertion by providing evidence that (starting to get lost here) one of Skousen's relatives was considered fringey by the church? While that's not ideal, it's absolutely ridiculous for tgeorgescu to be treating this as if it were an attempt to insert libel into a BLP. I'm seeing a lot of problematic behavior here from tgeorgescu toward an IP who, while they may need to learn a few things, does not seem to be ill-intentioned. —valereee (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• It is looking like BLP is being used as a blunt instrument to browbeat a content opponent, at least that's the impression I got. First, the IP's good faith edit is reverted as "vandalism," then they're told that because they're a member of the LDS Church they have a conflict of interest about LDS content matters. I know I'd be upset if I were they. El_C 11:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Hi Valereee, I lost track with the wall of text about Skousen but I'll get back to read it later. I believe that neither the IP nor Tgeorgescu are ill-intentioned in their respective propositions; however, we can't simply overlook the fact that the IP's aggressive behavior and engagement in personal attacks, accusations, and blatant insults directed towards me and Tgeorgescu has occurred since the very beginning of the discussion on the article's Talk page and revision history, which continued to escalate throughout the discussion despite my repeated attempts to settle a dispute resolution and finally reach consensus together, with proposals about what we should do with the paragraph discussed and the cited source. The IP repeatedly claimed that the cited source misrepresents or smears the LDS Church's official stance on prosperity gospel, and ordered to remove the paragraph entirely. I told him/her to calm down and follow the rules, because pretending to be in a position to give orders to other people is extremely inappropriate and ridiculous (to say the least...), and is not the way Wikipedia works. After more quarreling, the IP proposed to reword the paragraph and I agreed to do so along with adding more quotation marks to it, in order to highlight the author's opinion expressed in the cited source. As a matter of fact, the IP never answered to any of my proposals even though I agreed with him/her to reword the paragraph. GenoV84 (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

GenoV84, further up, I've warned you against your own aggressive conduct in this dispute —misconduct that in some ways was worse than Tgeorgescu's— so, I dunno, maybe acknowledge that I said that. Because the warning is real, I assure you. El_C 12:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

GenoV84, it can be pretty confusing to edit as an IP, especially when you're new. Just within this thread, the IP has changed.

IP, there are many advantages to creating an account, not least of which is that when other editors can see your well-intentioned edit history, they're less likely to misinterpret your edits as vandalism. Do be aware that the fact others are being uncivil to you doesn't justify you being uncivil back. As we see at Talk:Prosperity theology, that just escalates the situation, which is counterproductive to persuading others to see your point. When another editor is uncivil, instead of dishing it right back out, ask for help. (If you'd let me know you've seen this, I'd appreciate it; it isn't possible to ping an IP, and since yours changes, leaving a message on your current talk also doesn't guarantee you'll see it. Another good reason for creating an account.) —valereee (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yes, I have seen it. I have specifically avoided creating an account up to this point because I was concerned about harassment from exactly the type of editors that tgeorgescu and VGeno84 turned out to be. Honestly not sure if I want to have to deal with that sort of thing long term. And yeah, me dishing it back at them didn't help, but at the time, since it was two different editors with lengthy experience treating me like that, I assumed that there was some sort of unwritten rule I was unfamiliar wit that long-time editors like them were allowed to break the rules. It was only later in the day that I realized that both were just acting nasty and enough other users were pointing out issues wit their behavior that it was clear to me that they were in fact not allowed to be doing what they were doing.2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User_talk:2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 has user warning templates in the double digits that concern this dispute (several of which the IP editor has responded to directly). That is not what user warning templates are intended for. El_C 12:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I already did that. I replied to LindsayH after she posted a message on my Talk page about the warning templates that I left on the IP's Talk page; I recognized the fact thay I have been precipitous in labeling the IP's edits as vandalism, in fact I proceeded to remove the warning template and invited the IP to open a new section on the article's Talk page to discuss about the reason for his edits.

@Valereee: It can be difficult to edit as an IP, I agree about that. But the point is, even if initially the IP got angry due to my warning templates, that's not an excuse to insult other users anyway. In fact, I explicitly asked the IP if the warning templates were the reason for his/her aggressive behavior towards me. GenoV84 (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

False personal attacks... Seriously? The only person you seem to be preoccupied with on your talk page and the revision history of this article is me: "GenoV84 here", "GenoV84 there", "GenoV84 is this", "GenoV84 is that"... I never attacked you in the first place, while you seem to be quite upset and bitter towards me. For what? Because I reverted your edits while you never thought about opening a new section on this talk page and discuss about that paragraph until I suggested you to do so? GenoV84 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [diff] GenoV84, I think that sort of speaks for itself. WP:BITE is an important component of Wikipedia's WP:PAG ethos. El_C 13:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the question that I was referring to when I asked the IP why he/she was being aggressive towards me on the article's Talk page, because I didn't figure out why he/she was behaving that way. As I said before, I recognized that I've been precipitous in my judgement, I made a mistake and removed the warning template, but I never meant to bite nor harass the IP. In fact, I invited him/her to open a new section on the Talk page in order to find a resolution and collaborate together. GenoV84 (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

GenoV84, I hope that by "invitation" you don't mean this, because as far as invitations go, it isn't great. Stressing also that I like my evidence in the form of diffs. Anyway, please feel free to point out if elsewhere you had said to the IP editor (expressly) something to the effect of: 'sorry I called your edit vandalism when I reverted it, let's discuss.' Possibly I missed it. El_C 13:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No I didn't apologize for it, I removed the warning template and invited the IP to open a new section on the Talk page: Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you think that the source itself or the content of the paragraph should be changed, you can open a new section and discuss about it on Talk:Prosperity theology. Thanks. GenoV84 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC). GenoV84 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, so you didn't acknowledge your own error beyond converting the vandalism warning with a WP:POINT one, then you invited the user to the talk page. You are not required to apologize, of course, but saying something to the effect of: 'I recognize that my vandalism warning to you was in error' — that's sort of the least I'd expect from you. El_C 14:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've been precipitous in my judgement and I didn't handle this discussion in the most appropriate way, although I meant to do things right. I should have dealt with the IP in a more thoughtful and polite manner since the beginning, as I said I didn't mean to offend or harass anyone. I will proceed to offer my apologies to him/her. GenoV84 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GenoV84, I appreciate that. El_C 14:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: So, what is wrong with my reasoning? Mark Skousen stated that Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids. The IP stated that rendering such view is purposefully smearing the LDS Church. But of course, the smear argument breaks down when we understand that Skousen is a faithful Mormon. That's why the IP had to claim that Skousen is not a faithful Mormon. If they did not say that, they would have admitted they are wrong. So, it boils down to: according to the IP Skousen is a heretic and an slanderer of the LDS Church. So, in order to claim that we smear the LDS Church, the IP had to smear Skousen. If there is any flaw in my reasoning, please point it out. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I'm not the one who edited the article, that was Valereee (diff). El_C 18:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu once again misrepresents the entire case. I objected to the fact that the quote was used in the way it was in the article to attempt to connect Mormonism's strong work ethic with all of the baggage and issues of prosperity theology. It was even prefaced in the article with "However," and was inserted directly after the quotes from Dallin H. Oaks condemning prosperity theology. That's such a clear and blatant attempt to influence readers to think that Oaks is hiding something and the LDS Church is firmly connected with all the baggage and issues of prosperity theology. I did indeed say after that that there was no reason to include that line in the article at all, as it still seemed like an attempt to warp POV by GenoV84 and Tgeorgescu, given that there were portions of the Harper's Magazine article already in the "Relationship with other movements" section of the article that presented the factual basis for the assertion that there were similarities between some elements of LDS beliefs and Prosperity Theology. Tgeorgescu got really insulting and accused me of censorship and said that I wasn't allowed to oppose the inclusion of any criticism of religion in the article at all, despite the fact that I had clearly already demonstrated I wasn't attempting to remove assertions that provided evidence of similarities in the "Relationship with other movements" section.

Tgeorgescu eventually tried to bring up their assertion that Skousen is a faithful Mormon as some sort of magic bullet that eliminated all of the issues with the usage. Besides the obvious issues with that approach, I pointed out that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. Then tgeorgescu became apoplectic and attempted to change what the entire argument had been, and continues to misrepresent what I actually did. They even keep attributing nefarious motives to me that are easily disproved by what I actually said earlier on in the talk section of the Prosperity Theology article before tgeorgescu attempted to move the goalposts. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You have still presented absolutely no evidence that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. That's a WP:BLP violation. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You were already warned by admins as attempting to misuse BLP here to try to browbeat a content opponent. This line of argument you are using has already been rejected. What I presented was not "absolutely no evidence." Admin said that it might not be ideal, but that it's enough to make your accusations of BLP violations inappropriate. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope, you mentioned absolutely no WP:RS which WP:Verifies your claim that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church.

And even if we admit that most Mormons do not vote for the Libertarian Party, being a libertarian is not a heresy. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please take note of the continued dishonesty, repeated intentional misrepresentations, and attempts at browbeating that tgeorgescu is still involved in even here. I will not directly respond to tgeorgescu from here on out, as it is just feeding into their continued misbehavior that amounts to a form of harassment, and they keep persisting in the same behavior they have already been warned about. Severe action needs to be taken against them for what they continue to do. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think that WP:RS WP:Verifies your claim, you have a serious WP:CIR problem, namely reading comprehension (you cannot make heads or tails of a written text). Or you are being intentionally vexatious, that's also possible. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please note the severity of the baseless personal attacks, insults, and harassment tgeorgescu continues to engage in even in front of the admins. Users like tgeorgescu and what they are openly doing is exactly why I have been hesitant to make an actual account. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

So, what are you waiting for? Prove me wrong! How many times do I have to ask you? Prove me wrong for all to see! tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please note that after tgeorgescu was already warned by an admin that they were wrong and their claim of a BLP violation was false and being inappropriately wielded as a weapon in an attempt tobrowbeat me, they continue openly lying and stating that their assertion is completely true, while harassing me and attempting to demand repeatedly that I prove what was already shown. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

So, what do you wait for? Provide a verbatim quote which WP:Verifies your claim that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. You cannot eat your cake and still have it. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Break

@El C: Please give them an ultimatum to WP:Verify their claim or get blocked. This is getting tedious. So, either because of a reading disability or because they are intentionally vexatious, the IP is publicly humiliating Mark Skousen without providing evidence for their claim. And nobody seems to care. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No doubt because of its explosive connotations, the Mormon church has officially distanced itself from the White Horse Prophecy, stressing that it is not part of approved doctrine [...] For what it’s worth, however, Mark Skousen cites the prophecy as the motive behind his uncle’s publishing and lecturing career (from the source in question: https://harpers.org/archive/2011/10/pennies-from-heaven). Maybe that's the connection being referenced...? Though I don't know if "official distancing" necessarily = being viewed as "fringe" by LDS orthodoxy. Doesn't seem like a BLP violation to posit in the course of discussing the subject matter, in any case. El_C 20:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: That WP:V that his uncle was fringe, it does not WP:V that Mark is fringe. Mark is not his own uncle.

Besides, the IP did not WP:CITE Harper's, but they cited salon.com. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please explain to us why his uncle was fringe in your eyes? Also what is wrong with Salon.com?CycoMa (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not claim there is anything wrong with salon.com. I just stated that it does not WP:V the claim that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. If you want to find out why his uncle was fringe, read the two articles (briefly: he, meaning the uncle, was a conspiracy theorist). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, it was my understanding that they both followed the White Horse Prophecy. I haven't read the Salon piece, I read the Harpers one cited in the article. That's why I mentioned it. Anyway, maybe it'd be best that you do something else for the immediate moment... I don't think being so intensive (to the point of repetition) is advancing the debate at this point. Much of it is probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard, in any event. El_C 20:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C Now that this has been settled, can tgeorgescu's repeated harassment, insults, personal attacks, lying, and misrepresentation be addressed and handled? 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes two high: those two articles prove eventually (at most) that Mark bought into a conspiracy theory. Neither WP:V the claim that he is not a faithful Mormon. Buying into a conspiracy theory does not preclude him from being a faithful Mormon. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever Mark Skousen believes, it does not mean either that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church or that Mark is not a faithful Mormon. E.g. belief in conspiracy theories does not preclude one from being a faithful Mormon. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, again, maybe give it a rest...? Two uninvolved admins have participated in this thread thus far, myself and Valeree. Sorry you take exception to our conclusions, but it is what it is. El_C 20:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Admins, please note that tgeorgescu is continuing on with the same line of argument even after being told by an admin to stop. Please also note that the phrase "faithful Mormon" was first used by tgeorgescu, not me. They used it on the NPOV noticeboard after another user agreed that there were major issues with the disputed section that included the Skousen quote. Tgeorgescu attempted to use the phrase "faithful Mormon" as a sort of magic bullet that erased all of the issues pointed out. When I pointed out even a small issue with that line of reasoning (Skousen's involvement in fringe stuff denounced by the LDS Church) this is when tgeorgescu derailed everything and went on a crusade attempting to deflect from everything else and change the subject to relentlessly accusing me of BLP violations while harassing and insulting me.2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) "Faithful" is a subjective word. If I claimed to be a devout or a practising believer, that would be easily disproved. If I claimed to be a faithful one, that would require some sort of an inquisition. As a historical example, both Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople declared themselves faithful Christians, but they excommunicated each other in 1054. Narky Blert (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

2601, you seem to be having difficulty with the concept that Skousen's uncle being involved in a fringe group does not mean that Skousen himself is involved in a fringe group. That is what tgeorgescu has been trying to explain to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

No, not at all. You intentionally leave out that Mark consistently being used as the spokesman for those fringe theories does tie him to them. As El already mentioned, the Harper's article does indeed itself suggest that Mark is also a proponent of the white Horse Prophecy. 2601:681:300:13F:F8D2:2902:104D:60BC (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

What you say could be true, but we don't accept that without evidence. Neither source paints Mark as a proponent of that prophecy. And its relegation to the fringe is very recent, due to fear of external criticism. Historically, LDS leaders have endorsed it as true belief. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he gets called on as a spokesperson for the prophecy very much is evidence. He's not a theological scholar or historian, he's a libertarian economist, and as such has no reason to be called on to explain the theory unless he's directly involved with it. El C, who wasn't even familiar with it before this, already mentioned that the Harper's article very much gave the impression of him as a proponent as well. Also, the prophecy being relegated to the fringes by the LDS church is not recent. For example, the prophecy was first retroactively claimed in 1900, the President of the Church dismissed it in 1916, one of the church's main scholars in 1966 documented its creation and existence as false and deceptive, and in 2010 not only did one church historian document issues with its creation in 1900, the LDS church itself officially warned of it and clarified yet again that it was never Church doctrine. So, throughout nearly its entire existence, positions of authority in the Church have dismissed it, and it was not embraced as true by the church. 2601:681:300:13F:F8D2:2902:104D:60BC (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

None of what you have replied is verifiable in the two given sources, except for libertarian economist. On the contrary, one of the sources claims that No doubt because of its explosive connotations, the Mormon church has officially distanced itself from the White Horse Prophecy, stressing that it is not part of approved doctrine, even though numerous Mormon leaders from Brigham Young on down have casually treated it as such.

If you don't produce verbatim quotes from WP:RS, we have no reason to believe you on your word of honor. That's not how Wikipedia works. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It is verifiable, from Skousen's own words in the article. He says ""Because there’s this prophecy from Joseph Smith that one day the Constitution would hang by a thread and the elders would rise up. And so he thought it was important that they be educated." Notice that Skousen is presenting the prophecy as fact and openly attempting to justify his uncle's advocacy of it as if that were a fact, not as a prophecy whose authenticity has been repeatedly disputed or dismissed by the church. He didn't say "Joseph Smith is claimed to have prophesied...," he openly claims that Smith said it in just the manner that has been repeatedly denied and dismissed by the LDS Church for nearly a century. That firmly ties Mark Skousen himself with the fringe that pushes the White Horse Prophecy despite the LDS church having repeatedly denied their claims. As far as the second line of the Harper's article you just listed, there are numerous sources spanning nearly a century that debunks it and shows repeated dismissals and denials of the authenticity of the White Horse Prophecy over that time period by LDS authorities and scholars, as well as exhortation by those authorities towards church members to not be involved with it (https://archive.org/details/mormondoctrine00mcco, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol49/iss3/6/,https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/cobabe-whitehorse.pdf, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/2010/01/church-statement-on-white-horse-prophecy-and-political-neutrality.html). So that isn't evidence for your claim either. 2601:681:300:13F:F8D2:2902:104D:60BC (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's so much here that is about content, but I just read the Harper's article where the quote appears. In context, it's clearly framed that Mark is explaining what his uncle believed; the snippet "There's this prophecy" is supporting why his uncle believed constitutional education was important. There's no indication that Mark believes or disbelieves it; he's merely stating the fact that there was a prophecy and saying that was the impetus for his uncle's career. "There's this prophecy" is sandwiched between "one of his callings was to educate" and "And so he thought it was important". I don't see a reasonable reading of that section of the article to support any personal belief's of Mark's (unless it's to support "he believed that his uncle believed..."). Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

On the content call I think tgeorgescu is right, as it is my experience that they usually are in this field. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

On the talk section of the Prosperity Theology article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Editorialized_opinion_inserted_into_Criticism_section_as_a_violation_of_multiple_rules), tgeorgescu has made edits to their comments at the end of the section in order to add some of the false accusations, misrepresentations, and line of argument/personal attacks that they were told to stop here. Part of it was done after they were already told here to stop. This is clearly an attempt to poison the well on any further useful discussion there despite being told to stop this, and comes after they were rebutted by multiple other users who were initially uninvolved, both here and on the NPOV noticeboard. 2601:681:300:13F:F8D2:2902:104D:60BC (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu, I am coming very close to sanctioning you. I've already warned you against using BLP as a blunt instrument to browbeat a content opponent. For the last time, stop using the word "smear." It has possible legal implication, which in turn has the effect of stifling debate by creating a chilling effect. I don't understand why you continue to ignore my warnings by doing so, but it reflects poorly on you that you do. Any further such WP:IDHT will have consequences. I highly advise you (again, 3rd time now) to go do something else. El_C 04:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @El C: Tgeorgescu didn't even remove what they were warned about or walk back any of the false accusations made in their edits of the talk section on the Prosperity Theology article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Editorialized_opinion_inserted_into_Criticism_section_as_a_violation_of_multiple_rules). They simply just a few minutes ago put a strikethrough on the word "smear" and did little else, still leaving it there to create the assertions and accusations they were warned about. As this is the first time I've ever been involved with the admins, I don't know if that's actually standard for cases like this, or if it's an attempt to get around what they were repeatedly warned about and keep poisoning the well on discussion there. From my inexperienced view, it sure looks like the latter, but I realize that you know far better than I do when it comes to this. 2601:681:300:13F:F8D2:2902:104D:60BC (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    • According to the customs of Wikipedia, that means I have retracted the claim that you smear Mark Skousen, since deleting posts is usually not done. By quoting out of context you still have not convinced me that the claim is verifiable. He explained his uncle's views, none of the sources explains if Mark himself is a believer in that prophecy. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Query to IP

IP, what preferred user talk page should editors employ for your account/s? Would you like it to still be User talk:2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34? Note that it isn't linked from any of your other IPs — i.e. a /64 offers no such functionality (outside of block log weirdness).

Anyway, it just isn't practical for editors to keep shifting from one user talk page to another each time you get assigned a new Wikipedia IP account. I'd note that registering an account would easily resolve this issue, though of course it isn't an actual requirement. El_C 11:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't know. Why it has shifted so many times in the past few days after it had been consistent for a couple months is something I have no clue about. As I mentioned previously, the fear of the sort of harassment I faced from tgeorgescu is exactly why I had avoided making an account so far, and the fact that he's still able to interact with me after all of that has done nothing to quell those fears. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• IP, that makes zero sense. Right now, anyone is able to geolocate you via your IP. But once you register an account, your IP becomes hidden. El_C 18:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have a constant, permanent page this way that I have to worry about harassment on even after this dispute has faded. If I make an account, there's a single page constantly available as a target. Given the way tgeorgescu and GenoV84 used even my first IP talk page to spam double-digit amounts of various warnings as a form of harassment and intimidation, and that it's not considered okay for users to remove those from their own talk page, that's not something I want to have to worry about. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• IP, the relevant policy permits you to remove anything you see fit from your user talk page, including blanking it outright. Also, I already said that those warnings in the double-digits constituted user warning template abuse, so why would it be used against you. If anything, those who issued those warnings to you are the ones that are in the hot seat.

In any case, feel free to remove anything you'd like from User talk:2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34, regardless of what you decide. I'm just trying to nudge you to register an account because I think it'd be in everyone's best interests, not least your own. HTH! El_C 18:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I had read another incident on this noticeboard where a user got in trouble for removing warnings others posted on their talk page. I know you said those double-digit warnings constitute abuse, but you didn't actually do anything other than giving a warning. No blocking them for what they did, giving them a temp ban, preventing them from interacting with me, etc. So it certainly seemed to me like they were getting away with it. At least I know now that I am allowed to remove all of that kind of stuff, so that does help ease my concerns some 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E

• IP, I realize that when looking here, you might think that because I've blocked over 8,000 users, I'm trigger happy, but actually I'm not. Unlike those user warning templates that were inappropriately issued to you, my warnings actually have teeth, because I'm able to enforce them with sanctions. The thing is that blocking (or other sanctions) aren't needed yet, in my view. I'd stress that, by policy, sanctions on Wikipedia are WP:NOTPUNITIVE. Anyway, now that a final warning has been issued, sanctions will follow any further misconduct towards you from those users. But they both said they understood, so here's hoping it'd be calm waters and smooth sailing from this point on. El_C 19:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• El_C Tgeorgescu just resumed part of the line of argument on the talk page of the prosperity theology article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Editorialized_opinion_inserted_into_Criticism_section_as_a_violation_of_multiple_rules) that they were told here didn't work. They seem to believe that as long as they leave out the word "smear" they are allowed to keep repeating the same thing over and over as an effort to prevent further constructive discussion on the matter. I've already addressed what they're claiming, you and other users have already addressed what they're claiming, and they still keep insisting on it and using it to try to derail discussion that attempts to move past that. They are using it as a sort of magic bullet to shoot down any other points about the discussion and try to prevent discussion leading to further changes to the article. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• IP, you're writing too fast for me. Please have mercy! Anyway, as an uninvolved admin, it isn't my place to intervene in content disputes, only to ensure that the editorial process proceeds absent policy violations. I haven't reviewed the material closely, but my sense is that the three of you have more than said your piece at this point, so it'd probably be better to let other editors review the discussion and have their say. Hope that makes sense. El_C 20:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• El_C Sorry, I've responded here as Tgeorgescu has made additions and edits to the talk page there. Tgeorgescu is doing there what they were told to stop. They are making it impossible for further constructive discussion to proceed there. That poisoning of the well after being told to stop presents other editors from having their say in a reasonable manner, as it attempts to forcibly distract from what points were actually made in order to push allegations and a line of argument that they were told to stop. I made one comment there after the process here had mostly concluded, to try to present a jumping-off point going forward now that the behavior parts of the talk section had been handled. And tgeorgescu immediately tried to derail it by again doing part of what they were told to stop doing. It appears to be an intentional strategy to prevent any change or removal by the community of the section tgeorgescu wants kept in as-is, and that does fall under what you warned here, so some action needs to be taken to prevent it. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• IP, I get it. They really wanted to have you sanctioned, with little cause. Now you wish to see them (or rather, Tgeorgescu, since GenoV84 seems to have wisely taken a break from the dispute) sanctioned in turn, with some cause, I grant you. But I really don't think you need to say anything beyond something to the effect of: 'I feel I've already substantiated my assertions, this feels repetitive.' Again, let other editors review the discussion and opine on it. Your comments thus far ought to stand on their own merit. It's just that I'm wary of censoring anyone, even when repetitive. El_C 20:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• El_C It's more that Tgeorgescu's continued attempt to make the entire discussion about their allegations about me and how I view Mark Skousen, when that's not even what is currently being discussed, is both an attempt at derailment and continued harassment of me after they were warned to stop. Them continuing to do so prevents my comments being able to stand on their own merit, as it doesn't even address them and instead keeps attempting to steer the discussion to "None of that matters, because IP only wants it removed because of a personal grudge against Mark Skousen." Which isn't the argument being made, never was, and tgeorgescu continues to attempt to make it so even after being warned repeatedly to stop. That's pretty blatant continuing harassment of me by them, in addition to all the monkey wrenches it's still attempting to throw into the content dispute process. I see what they are doing as an attempt at censorship (trying to prevent discussion on any changes or alterations of something that the community has already agreed has issues by repeatedly attempting to make the thread about allegations and speculation they have made about me personally), and that preventing them from doing so is in no way censorship. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

IP, I put "personal grudge" into Ctrl-F, both here and on the article talk page, but found nothing. So I don't know where that quote is from. I prefer my evidence in the form of diffs, I'd stress. That way, I can tell who said what when. El_C 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C Sorry, that was paraphrasing. I'm also not experienced enough to understand how to use diffs properly yet, so I'll be presenting some of the things that tgeorgescu has posted since being warned, as they are currently written. I apologize if that seems inadequate, I'm not currently capable of more.

From the talk thread: "@LindsayH: Let me translate from English to English: the whole point of IP's edits is to show that Mark Skousen is a heretic and a slanderer of the LDS Church. It is a smear campaign, if we are to call a spade a spade. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC) So, what is wrong with my reasoning? Mark Skousen stated that "Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids". The IP stated that rendering such view is purposefully smearing the LDS Church. But of course, the smear argument breaks down when we understand that Skousen is a faithful Mormon. That's why the IP had to claim that Skousen is not a faithful Mormon. If they did not say that, they would have admitted they are wrong. So, it boils down to: according to the IP Skousen is a heretic and an slanderer of the LDS Church. So, in order to claim that we smear the LDS Church, the IP had to smear Skousen. If there is any flaw in my reasoning, please point it out. Their argument is that by juxtaposing the public declarations of two notable, faithful members of the LDS Church we are smearing the LDS Church. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)" Then today, when I attempted to address the disputed portions that were still in the article and bring up some of the issues that had been pointed out with them by users other than me in (and didn't even bring up Skousen other than briefly mentioning that his quote had already been removed by Valareee), this is the entirety of what tgeorgescu responded to me with "Let me be very clear: I have retracted the word smear about you because it can be construed as a violation of WP:NLT. That's all. It does not mean that it would be WP:Verifiable anything you have claimed about Mark Skousen, excepting libertarian economist. I should have used words that do not have legal connotations. I still did not grant you're right about anything else than libertarian economist about Mark Skousen. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)" We can see that tgeorgescu keeps refusing to engage on any of the actual points or issues, even those brought up by other users, but has instead posted multiple times solely an attempt to make this entirely about allegations and accusations about me. That latest response, where the Skousen quote wasn't even debated in what they responded to 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

So, I have retracted anything that could be construed as a legal threat. That's what El C said was wrong with my edits. I still believe you have produced no WP:Verifiable WP:RS that Mark Skousen is anything else than a libertarian economist: you have produced no evidence that he believes in that conspiracy theory, you have produced no evidence that he is a conspiracy theorist, you have produced no evidence that he is affiliated with fringe groups, you have produced no evidence that he has heretical views in respect to the LDS Church. So, let me be clear: I don't claim he isn't those, just that you have provided absolutely no evidence for your claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C Tgeorgescu's still at it, even here. Even after you told them to stop, even after you told them that the Harper's article does provide evidence of Skousen being affiliated with the White Horse Prophecy, even after I broke down Skousen's words in the article to show how they provided evidence of his affiliation with the White Horse Prophecy, tgeorgescu refuses to stop and keeps attempting to make it all about Skousen and me, in a manner full of intentional misrepresentations and openly lying that constitutes harassment even after being told to stop. They refuse to allow any of the other salient points to be addressed and keep returning to this even after being repeatedly warned not to 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

So? The claim that you have smeared him has been retracted and remains retracted. Don't ask me to tell the lie that you have produced evidence for any of your claims about him, except libertarian economist. Since that indeed would be, objectively seen, a lie (untruth). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C The harassment by tgeorgescu and repeated, blatant lying for the sake of continuing on with that harassment is still happening, right here. Their ignoring of repeated warnings to stop is still happening right here too. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

IP, it really would help matters along, if you'd create an account. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@IP: So? Provide a verbatim quote from one of those two sources which proves that I'm lying. Till now you have produced no such evidence.

Several people tried to explain you that he is not his own uncle and that he cannot be held accountable for the views of his own uncle and that none of the sources explains what Mark himself believes about the White Horse Prophecy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

"Because there’s this prophecy from Joseph Smith that one day the Constitution would hang by a thread and the elders would rise up. And so he thought it was important that they be educated." Mark Skousen's words, not Cleon Skousen's. I will not be addressing tgeorgescu directly any more as they continue to openly lie and harass, as this evidence was already presented above but tgeorgescu dishonestly tried to claim that it is equal to "no evidence." The context of that statement still presents the first sentence there as Mark's words, not Cleon's. It doesn't say "My uncle followed an alleged prophecy that claims...," it says "There's this prophecy from Joseph Smith...," which in context still shows Mark presenting it as fact, firmly affiliating him with the prophecy. El C already told tgeorgescu that the article supports this, but they refuse to listen. The repeated lying, harassment, and intentional misrepresentations by tgoergescu must stop. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Quoting out of context won't do: those are the views of his uncle, nowhere that source claims that Mark believes what his uncle believed. Yup, it's Mark telling what his uncle believed. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C Continued harassment, openly lying, and intentional misrepresentation by tgeorgescu here. The quote was not given out of context, and the quote itself differentiates the first sentence as what Mark is claiming versus the second sentence being presented as Mark quoting his uncle's opinion. Tgeorgescu continues to try to intentionally abuse and misuse wiki rules to attempt to browbeat others, even after being warned to stop. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No. It's as simply as this: in context Mark explains what his uncle believed. Nowhere Mark himself claims to believe or disbelieve in that prophecy. An WP:OR matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Why won't you create an account & sign in? GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C this user, who wasn't previously involved in this discussion at all, has suddenly started repeating some variation of this demand/accusation. They also posted on my personal talk page "Why won't you create an account & sign in? What are you afraid of? GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)" The timing of it alongside tgeorgescu's renewed harassment sure seems suspicious. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Mark's belief/disbelief in the White Horse Prophecy has not been recorded in any of those two sources. He simply speaks about what his own uncle believed.

So, IP, unless you show us that Mark's belief in the prophecy is a matter of public record, we have no reason to believe what you say.

This has been confirmed by Schazjmd at [121]. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2021 (UT

Nothing about tgeorgescu's claim was confirmed, especially as this revision was added only recently after tgeorgescu started their renewed harassment here today, making it highly suspicious. Also, tgeorgescu was already told by El C that the Harper's article does support Mark's affiliation with the White Horse Prophecy, this revisionist lying tgeorgescu has engaged in today already had no leg to stand on with that before it even started today. Tgeorgescu has been openly caught repeatedly lying and intentionally misrepresenting the actual posts in the thread, while falsely trying to claim that those they are dishonestly attacking and misrepresenting can't be believed. They also keep making demands that others have already shot down as invalid. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you having WP:IDHT problems? Why won't you create an account & sign in? GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@IP: either prove that I'm lying or beat it. According to El C the problem with the word smear is WP:NLT. I have addressed that problem. What El C did not ask me is to say that you have provided evidence for your claims (you obviously didn't). Saying that you did not provided WP:V evidence for your claims isn't WP:HARASSMENT. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

El_CContinued harassment, lying, intentional misrepresentation, and demands from tgeorgescu here. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You have two options: either prove that I'm lying or stop saying it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

For those reading, here's an example from this noticeboard that shows that tgeorgescu's recent claims about me having presented no evidence are openly lying. "Tgeorgescu, it was my understanding that they both followed the White Horse Prophecy. I haven't read the Salon piece, I read the Harpers one cited in the article. That's why I mentioned it. Anyway, maybe it'd be best that you do something else for the immediate moment... I don't think being so intensive (to the point of repetition) is advancing the debate at this point. Much of it is probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard, in any event. El_C 20:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC) An admin told them directly that the Harper's article supported the connection of Mark to the White Horse Prophecy, and also told them to drop this line of argument. Notice that this also rebuts tgeorgescu's recent fabricated claim that the only thing the admins told them to do was stop using the word "smear." The accusations that tgeorgescu is making against me are easily disproved, and the fact that they continue to engage in it despite that exposes further the campaign of harassment and intentional misrepresentation they are currently engaged in here. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's so much here that is about content, but I just read the Harper's article where the quote appears. In context, it's clearly framed that Mark is explaining what his uncle believed; the snippet "There's this prophecy" is supporting why his uncle believed constitutional education was important. There's no indication that Mark believes or disbelieves it; he's merely stating the fact that there was a prophecy and saying that was the impetus for his uncle's career. "There's this prophecy" is sandwiched between "one of his callings was to educate" and "And so he thought it was important". I don't see a reasonable reading of that section of the article to support any personal belief's of Mark's (unless it's to support "he believed that his uncle believed..."). Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

To those reading, note that tgeorgescu couldn't even dispute that an admin already stated the Harper's article provided evidence, well before tgeorgescu falsely accused me here of refusing to provide evidence. They instead brought up a recent addition to the noticeboard made after tgeorgescu had resumed their campaign of harassment and accused me of refusing to provide any evidence. The lying there is quite blatant. They tried to act like this recent (suspicious) post made the previous admin quote never happen, and constituted me refusing to provide evidence. In fact, the quote shows that an admin already signed off on evidence having been presented, and told tgeorgescu so, while also telling them to lay off this line of argument. This makes the attempt at lying by tgeorgescu even more blatant, and easily disproved. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As I have told: either prove that I'm lying or beat it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Observation

From what I've read, the IP seems to be displaying WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, possibly WP:COI & definitely WP:SPA issues. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

El_CThis user appears to have been brought in by tgeorgescu to aid them in their campaign of harassment. Besides their behavior on this board that began only after tgeorgescu renewed that harassment here, they also made posts on my personal talk page that included taunting me with "What are you afraid of." They also accused me of violating IDHT specifically for not making an account. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You complained against me, you complained against GenoV84, you complained against GoodDay. I think that you forgot to complain against Schazjmd. That would be an anonymous editor complaining against four established editors. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

GenoV84 and tgeorgescu were already warned by admins for their behavior in this matter, and GoodDay and Schasjmd only came in very recently after the thread had been open for multiple days and tgeorgescu started a revisionist harassment campaign here earlier today, and no admin has been on this post since their recent arrival. So for those reading, notice the personal attacks, intentional misrepresentations, and lying by tgeorgescu here, who even attempts to chest-thump and pull rank in the process despite having already been warned by admins as attempting to misuse and misrepresent the rules for the sake of browbeating me. 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I was reprimanded for using the word smear, which has WP:NLT implications. I have cleared that issue. I wasn't reprimanded for saying that you did not produce WP:V evidence for your claims.

Stating that you have indulged in WP:OR is by no means WP:HARASSMENT. Your claims about Mark Skousen {{failed verification}}. You see, there is even a template for that. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu, at least you, GenoV84 and to some extent GoodDay (here and here) have engaged in extreme newcomer-biting behavior against this IP, so it really is no wonder that they are complaining. I suggest GoodDay and you emulate GenoV84 in their wise decision to focus on something else. If you don't, I would support blocking you for 48 hours. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• IP, as EI C says, the idea that you'd receive more harassment by creating an account is the opposite of the truth. Creating an account protects you from off-wiki harassment because it hides your IP, and it makes you less likely to be harassed on-wiki because it lets everyone see your editing history in full from that moment forward. It makes it easier for people to communicate with you. It lets you develop a reputation for constructive editing and collaborative relationships with other editors. Unless there is some very compelling reason not to create an account -- like maybe you can only edit from your work computer and your employer prohibits it -- there is no downside for a well-intentioned editor to creating an account.

IP and @Tgeorgescu both: OMG give it a rest. No one wants to read all these repetitive accusations of each other. IP: also stop with the lengthy posts. The longer the post, the fewer people will read it and the less of it they'll read.

For closer: my take on this is:

1. The IP has asserted that a source proves something it doesn't. This may be completely innocent, as the IP likely has a strong opinion on what they're trying to prove (tl;dr version: that M. Skousen isn't a good Mormon and shouldn't be quoted about Mormonism.) The IP likely needs to be warned that a passionate opinion can in fact constitute a COI, and that if they can't edit neutrally around Mormonism, they probably shouldn't edit around Mormonism until they learn how to edit neutrally there.
2. tgeorgescu has been biting this newbie mercilessly and has continued to in this ANI despite warnings.

—valereee (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My motivation was that the IP came across as intentionally vexatious (e.g. boastful claims of being absolutely/objectively right). If my judgment was wrong, I apologize. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The harassment of me started before that, when both GenoV84 and tgeorgescu hurled a range of accusations at me ranging from censorship to vandalism to being a paid editor, solely for editing the article in question even though I presented a valid reason for doing so that was acknowledged by other users such as LindsayH. It was only after they continued on with the lines of personal attack instead of addressing the actual subject matter in question that I made the statements that tgeorgescu claims as justification for their harassment of me, and I did so because they refused to provide supporting evidence or address the actual evidence regarding the disputed section that had been presented by multiple users, and they instead kept attempting to make the entire discussion about personal attacks and allegations against me. Tgeorgescu escalated this significantly afterwards and insisted on continuing to do so here, even after being warned repeatedly by admins. That is not a case of their judgment being wrong, it is significantly past that.

As far as the claim that I wasn't editing neutrally, that is also untrue. At no point did I claim that this was all about Mark Skousen or my views of him, tgeorgescu attempted to bring up Skousen being Mormon as a magic bullet that eliminated all of the issues multiple different users pointed out with the disputed section. Before that, I repeatedly pushed for the Harper's article to remain in "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article, where it was presented neutrally and with the proper POV. El C also already backed up my assertion that the Harper's article does provide evidence of Skousen's connection to the White Horse Prophecy, even though that's not even the core of what this dispute is about in the first place. If any admin would like to talk to me personally about this, free of the framework that tgeorgescu kept insisting on while harassing me repeatedly, I am open to that. MojaveSummit (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's a disgrace that none of the parties to this dispute have edited Talk:Mark Skousen. The experienced Wikipedians might reflect on that. I understand from the IP address' comments above that they don't want to register an account because they want to be able to abandon their editing history and approach each matter with a clean slate, and I'm a bit concerned about that, to be quite honest. It's an approach that inoculates them against many of our ways of dealing with conduct problems on Wikipedia. I can see grounds to semi-protect Mark Skousen, encourage the registered editors to please kindly use the damn talk page, and all dial down the hostility to a more collegial level.—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have registered an account now. Your understanding of my motivations was way off-base. I wanted to avoid harassment from users like tgeorgescu, that's why I had avoided creating an account, especially after they spammed my IP talk page with warnings as a form of harassment. I was under the mistaken impression that I had to allow that sort of harassment to remain there. Multiple admins assured me that this is not the case. My concerns about this were adequately addressed by the admins, so I made an account. I was never, ever trying to hide my edit history, and have been very open here about letting each IP address of mine be connected to each other throughout this discussion. Also, if you read the entire discussion, you'd have seen that I maintained throughout that tgeorgescu was trying to deflect from the actual issues pointed out by multiple other issues with parts of the disputed section that weren't even about Mark Skousen by attempting to make it all about accusations about me and Mark Skousen. There was no reason for me to head to the talk page about Mark Skousen, that's not what the core of this dispute was about, despite tgeorgescu's efforts to retroactively make it so. Plus, that page is about his political/economic background, which isn't even the aspect that tgeorgescu was harping on here. MojaveSummit (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  @MojaveSummit, thank you for registering an account. This will make it much easier for others to communicate with you. —valereee (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Users adding images to articles at a high rate of speed

Yesterday, I noticed Siwema_Nikini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was adding images to the very top of articles (i.e, the first line of the articles) with the nonsensical edit summary "#WPWP #WPWPARK". Someone asked the user what they were doing but did not receive a response. The most recent edit under that account was roughly three hours ago.

I just noticed the account Mary calist mlay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making the exact same types of edits on my watchlist at a particularly high rate of speed. In the last seven hours, they've added images to more than 250 articles, all with the same nonsensical edit summary (except now they've added "#WPWPTZ" to the list of hash tags). I did a spot check of the edits and while most of the recent image additions have been to the top of articles, many have been to the bodies of articles too. I left a message on the user's talk page[122] but they have so far ignored it and continued adding images to articles. I also noticed that the editing of both accounts have overlapped -- the switching of accounts was apparently not account abandonment.

The images being added aren't wrong, at least from what I can tell (I'm not familiar with most of the features being referenced). In fact, some of the edits probably improved some of the articles. However, a lot of the edits seem unnecessary and they're being done at such a high rate of speed (with a misleading edit summary too under at least two accounts). Given their unresponsiveness to talk page messages, the use of multiple accounts, etc., and because I'm getting tired, I think this might merit another set of eyes. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a prize at stake. WPWP = m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021. WPWPARK and WPWPTZ are community identifiers listed on those pages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it, please disregard. (It would be nice if the edit summaries were a bit more descriptive so others who weren't familiar with this knew what was going on.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) m:Guide on how to use WPWP Campaign Hashtags#How to use the #WPWP Campaign hashtag - 'The hashtag is not a substitute for a "a descriptive edit summary". The hashtag, #WPWP or the community-specific hashtag must be added to the edit summary box of pages edited alongside a descriptive edit summary.' A friendly word of advice might be in order. Narky Blert (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed Hormorkunmy doing the same thing. They have re-introduced an incorrect image to the Matthew Cream article, which was removed earlier this year. I have a COI so I am not interested in editing the article, and had actually forgotten that I saw it happen, until this thread popped up. (Will notify Hormorkunmy of this thread.) Daniel (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note I removed the Matthew Cream image, and also put in a rename request at Commons, to hopefully prevent this from happening again. I notice that multiple editors have raised the issue in the past that the image does not depict the subject. (And my own research suggests the same.) Levivich 17:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Levivich! Daniel (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Purely for info - we have edit filter 1073 (recent hits) tracking all edits using the WPWP tags. firefly ( t · c ) 13:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Which includes some of my undos, as I've added the tags and "photobombing" in the edit summaries. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

More editors are joining in. Many of their contributions are helpful; some are not. At the risk of promoting a leaderboard, this list summarises the edits. It would have been nice to have some input into or at least notice of this initiative. Certes (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think we need to start giving out blocks if editors are noncommunicative and add images in a disruptive manner. A contest taking place is not a free pass for behavior that we would not tolerate otherwise. --Rschen7754 17:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the same redundant image from Mogadishu University no less than four times - each time it had been added by a different user. Apart from that, I have reverted a number of other image additions, and warned several users about disruption.

Some weeks ago, I started a thread at m:Talk:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021#Cryptic edit summaries, and the replies there by T Cells (talk · contribs) are not entirely to my satisfaction - for example, there is no assurance that the contest organisers will check the participating edits, let alone revert the bad ones. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

T Cells did ask all part taking organizers of the different languages and communities to do so, but they might not check this on a daily basis. One global organizer (= T Cells) cannot be held responsible for all edits done in the total campaign, and individual users are always responsible for their own edits. If a user cannot or will not converse (even on a basic level) with the rest of the language community even though they keep on doing disruptive edits, I think a block is indeed appropriate. It is against the competition rules to add images to Wikipedia's without a decent description in the language of that Wikipedia, or for instance to add pictures in bulk, like adding complete galleries. The goal of the competition is to add unused images to articles without any images, and on a secondary level to maybe create a more cultural diversity in images used in an article if appropriate - but always keeping in mind proportionality of the amount of images in relation to the article text. Ciell (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of these edits just don't seem right. Like look at this. Article is about HMS Havock (H43), but the picture is of HMS Hasty (H24) with the caption of "sister ship HMS Hunter"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

More edits by same user that I'm unsure about (ie, they could be fine, but just unsure of appropriateness myself): [123], [124] (adding a picture of apparently a U.S. Navy ship to an article about an Imperial Japanese one), [125], etc. Most seem fine though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Similar issues at HMS Exmoor (L61) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where two of the editors involved in this stupidity have added a completely incorrect image in the last 24 hours, despite the image including a very specific note about which ship it refers to. I don't see why the time of other editors should be wasted cleaning up the mess this is creating. FDW777 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue with this contest is it values quantity over quality. TBH I don't think it's reasonable to expect the contest organisers to check 51,000 edits, but our volunteer corps can't either, so this is a conundrum. I think overall more edits are helpful than not, but the bad edits can be quite a problem. Apparently the comment by the organisers suggests local blocks for issues disqualify from the contest, so that should be an incentive to ensure accuracy. If the community wants, we could also do a local edit filter throttle reminding users of local policy requirements if they're adding images too quickly. Or we can just tough it out and deal with individual users if there are problems. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Should we be allowing someone who is banned from English Wikipedia to organise a contest that includes edits to English Wikipedia articles? Doesn't that violate the spirit of WP:PROXYING? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think next year the English Wikipedia must opt-out of the contest, and we must make it very clear. Yesterday the #WPWP edits which were on my watchlist showed an error rate of about 50% (bad quality, bad captions, sometimes the image did not show the subject of the article). I understand that some people need money and hope to earn some in this way, but for me 50% error rate is close to the point when I would just blank-revert everything without looking at individual edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed, couldn't we just set that filter mentioned above to disallow? --Rschen7754 18:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

    Rschen7754, we could, and to be honest given the amount of disruption this event seems to cause I wouldn’t be against it. We could alternatively start by throttling such edits via filter and displaying a warning to users that images have to be relevant/useful, and to use edit summaries. firefly ( t · c ) 21:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed this is a mess—blindlynx (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I came here to post about this, It seems like a huge chunk of the things flagged 'likely to have problems' at recent changes are these edits. The sheer volume makes it difficult to go through and check for quality and correct formatting without having a dedicated proj doing this and that seems like a waste of time—blindlynx (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• See also Aminwa_21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mohamed mfuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—blindlynx (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• And Emmanuel Obiajulu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has made just shy of 2000 edits according to that quarry link above. I've already had to harp on him twice for adding captions to stuff that's popped up on my watchlist. The rest is far too much for me to check. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• In checking his last 15-20 edits I've already had to revert 3 additions as being completely the wrong species. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I would add to the above list of problems that some images are being added with text captions that just repeat the filename of the image, which may be unintelligible. BD2412 T 21:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yup, that's one of the things I had to ask Emmanuel to stop doing. Some of the captions he was jamming in were German. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Or sometimes without a caption or a caption identical to the name of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been an issue for a good 2-3 years now. I said it before and I'll say it again IMHO this "competition" should be banned entirely here. I'm sure a minority of those who participate in this probably do so constructively however the vast majority don't. All's this stupid competition does is incite disruption for the sake of a prize and it also creates mess for others to clear up. Ban it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Davey2010, problems "for ...2-3 [elsewhere, "many"] years" can't be attributed to the WPWP campaign earlier than its first run: July 2020 (last year). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Deborahjay, That's really really weird - I swear this has been going on for longer than 2020 I swear by it .... but both the meta page and edit filter were created in 2020 so it would seem I'm wrong here, Certainly seems a lot longer than a year, Thanks,

When I was skimming over the edit filter logs, the vast majority of edits being made were constructive, correct and helpful. I would guesstimate that the good rate is over 90%, based on the samples I quickly checked. So really, I'm worried whether banning it might be a bit knee-jerky. Not a single user has been locally blocked for this yet. What's the rate of error? Is the rate of error limited to certain users only? Can we throttle contributions to X per day? Questions like these should probably be asked before considering banning the contest. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, Unfortunately every edit I've seen with the WP hashtag I've had to revert (as it's not been an improvement) and unfortunately this issue has been a reoccurring problem here for many years so it's easy to assume all have been bad. If it's true that the majority (say 70-90%) of edits have actually been good then I would certainly support some sort of limit over banning. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I know there were issues with this competition last year as well - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive322#Image_competition? - so it does seem to be an ongoing problem. For some anecdata on my part, I scanned about 15-20 edits by Emmanuel Obiajulu and found no less than 3 that were incorrect species for the article they were placed on (Placing an image of Genera thisspecies on Genera thatspecies mostly). These were images that were clearly labelled with Genera thisspecies on the Commons page, so it's not an issue with Commons data, it's carelessness. I also noticed Adorvisa adding images today; they have now been blocked as a sock of RogerNiceEyes, who was blocked in March for high-speed inaccurate image additions to articles. Not sure if it's a coincidence, as Adorvisa wasn't using the WPWP hashtags, but if it isn't, it's indicative of the kind of editing behavior this sort of competition attracts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I tried to leave a note at AN at the start of the month (link) so we could get ahead of it this time around, but it didn't grab much attention heh. It may well attract unconstructive behaviour, but so does Wikipedia in general. It also attracts a lot of positive behaviour. I just don't think we should judge whether to ban the contest entirely without good evidence it's untenable and no other solution to reasonably accommodate it is possible. Given that we haven't even tried warn or throttle filters, and are mostly relying on anecdotes, I'm not convinced either has been done yet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I did block a user related to this, see 2 threads below. --Rschen7754 00:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I see. Well, then personally I think we should do this:

1. Passive warnings. When users are participating in this contest, use an edit filter to show them messages to welcome them to English Wikipedia, remind them of the applicable policies, remind them to take it slow and focus on quality, and the consequences of disruption.
2. If that fails, throttle contributions. If we limit users without extra userrights to 25/day or something, I strongly suspect any disruption will be eliminated while we'll still be keeping the productiveness of this campaign. The users cited above are adding literally 500 images per day each, so some errors are unsurprising. I prefer #1 because even at the higher rate most peoples' contribs are usually good, we just need occasional reminders to make the mistakes less.
3. If both fail, then consider banning the contest.

Personally I think any of the first two ideas will have desirable effects in better articles and less disruption, but we didn't try to actually do anything last year or this - discussion just faded out - so I dunno why we'd expect the situation to change this time around. Whatever we do, there is still over one month of this contest left (it ends 31 Aug), so we should probably figure something out rather than shelving it for yet another year. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wait a minute, the person leading this campaign is banned on here?! That already splits the communication here. – The Grid (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• The Grid Yes, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. In addition to a site ban they were given a specific topic-ban from images. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Could there be automation involved with image selection here? I've found multiple accounts adding the same erroneous images to the same articles. Siwema Nikini just turned up to add some of the same bad images that Unofficiallummy had done only hours earlier (albeit with thumbnails in infoboxes and sometimes duplicating the ones that are already there, thereby being especially disruptive). Siwema Nikini is continuing despite a level-4 warning - should these be reported to AIV, reported here, or let be for the time being? --Sable232 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• The fact that this competition has been a problem for many years and that the main organizer is banned from English Wikipedia makes it pretty clear that the English Wikipedia should opt-out of this campaign starting next year. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• I have noticed that Emmanuel Obiajulu is also doing this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• If the competition (with the "#WPWP"* tags) leads to such sloppy low quality work, why don't we community ban the competition and its participants (self declared via tags) from the English Wikipedia?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know why people keep repeating this. It's factually untrue. Has anybody actually looked at the filter log, 1073 (hist · log)?

  I've reviewed over half the last 50 contribs, again, and found zero cases of mistaken identity and two technical errors (ie duplicate image). There are a couple more that aren't perfect but are far from disruptive and unlikely to be higher than non-contest newbie error rates. The impression of the contest participants in this section is not representative of most participants or most contributions. That's a simple fact anyone can verify by browsing the public filter log themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I did prefix my sentence with an if, however you do make a strong point that the users discussed here suffer from a selection bias for disruption and are therefore not representative of the contestant cohort overall.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I jinxed it maybe. Avg error rates shot up the past 2 days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This topic was also briefly raised on 11 July at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Added image #WPWP #WPWPKWR. CMD (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely and rationally think that we should ban the contest. IMO rapid addition of images is just a horrible thing waiting to happen. Adding an image should involve an accuracy check, a rationale check, a licensing check, and a layout check. We're just going to get a bunch of images with bad licensing added to articles from this. With the whole focus being rate of speed, contestant's aren't going to check the image licensing. And we can't assume everything on Commons is okay (I nominate stuff for deletion on commons that I run into in articles here several times a month, because there's tons of bad licensing there). And we shouldn't be encouraging people to cram as many images into articles as possible - it causes layout and sometimes accessibility issues (see MOS:SANDWICH, among other things). We're just going to wind up with a bunch of articles crammed to the gills with images with often-shitty licensing because of this, and that's frankly disruptive. At a minimum, we need to make it clear that this contest should not be adding images to FAs - the FA criteria include image layout, licensing, and relevance checks, and a contest about speed editing images to articles is going to cause issues with the FA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose any unnecessarily harsh knee-jerk reactions. I get that some on enwp are automatically skeptical (or even cynical) of events/contests that lead to lots of new users editing, especially if organized outside of enwp. But apart from warning/blocking specifically problematic users (as we would in any other context), we should not be talking about banning the event or similarly harsh actions without (a) decent data on the quality of these edits beyond a handful of anecdotes and assumptions, and (b) more information about what will happen afterwards. T Cells/Wikicology is one of dozens of people involved here; it's not "his" contest. Let's ping a few of them at least somewhat active on enwp: @Deborahjay, Anthere, Jamie Tubers, and Astinson (WMF): are you aware of any plans to check the quality of contributions on the English Wikipedia? Are there any plans for evaluating the quality of contest contributions afterwards? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged above by @Rhododendrites:, I thought I might make a couple observations. First some context: I am part of a team working on improving the quality of support for campaign activities in the Wikimedia movement (see meta:Campaigns). We work on designing systems of support so that we can advance movement-wide work to fill topic/content/quality gaps on wikis in general. In that role I have been serving as a advisor on this campaign.

I want to make several observations in my capacity as a strategist:

• From all of the documented problems that I am reading so far in this discussion, and some spotchecking I did on the edit filter, campaign participants are not making any more bad edits than if they were normal enthusiastic newcomers in other contexts (and I suspect if we did analysis of the edits, the revert rate would be much lower than average, especially from newish contributors). The reason we are discussing this is that the community can see all of these edits together in one simple way (the hashtags) which makes it really transparent where the problems are coming from. Transparency should help us have better discussions to find constructive solutions, not punish participants.
• Many of the errors that I am finding in my own spotcheck of content and pointed to above appear to be originating from Commons or other Wikipedias. Even as a very experienced Wikipedia/Wikidata/Commons contributor in my volunteer capacity (User:Sadads): when I work on media files, I too end up accidently trusting other editors work in ways that creates the occasional error. Rooting out these problems on other wikis is complex, and hard for experienced editors in general; helping a newcomer figure out that kind of workflow would be even harder and would be an unusually high standard for participation on our wikis.
• As several folks have said already: if we are serious about the "anyone can edit" ethos of the project, enthusiasm for our mission and the potential for helping Wikipedia by adding images should be honed by improving the strategies for reception (see proposals below by one of the coordinators below @Deborahjay:). Remember that by introducing a minor quality error in good faith, by, for example, adding a less than helpful caption on a page it creates another low-hanging opportunity for new editors to fix content. Almost everyone in this discussion probably started fixing these kinds of errors on the Wiki in their first 500 edits or so -- its important to remember that we were all newcomers at one point, and learning from mistakes and fixing small errors is core to how people start in our community.
• There are a lot of signals that participants from last year's campaign were retained or reactivated well in both English and other language communities. Again, in spot checking other events and campaigns, a number of participate in other campaigns had #WPWP edits in their contributions (in both events with and without prizes). We see similar patterns with simple-edit oriented campaigns like #1lib1ref. Unfortunately we don't yet have a transparent, easy to leverage system for exploring these kinds of patterns in campaigns at a analytical/statistical level without a lot of very skilled technical work (part of what we hope to begin working on this year at WMF). I can advise the organizers or interested editors on how to do this kind of analysis after we get past the heat of the moment -- but I think it would be a shame to shut down a campaign that is successful at helping new editors feel like they can contribute to the community.
• This year the organizers significantly reduced prizes and restructured the instructions for the campaign to emphasize edit summaries and quality image checking (see the main campaign page on Meta). If contributors are not following the instructions, its on them and the community should feel confident warning and blocking folks who don't respond.

I hope the observations are helpful -- and I, personally, as a long-time Wikipedian, hope that English Wikipedia doesn't lose this pipeline of potentially fruitful newcomers and productive edits. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Alex for those comments. I second.

I am mostly involved in the Wiki Loves Africa specific prize (using WLA images to illustrate articles). I will note that I do intend to do some review of the insertions mid-August. I am currently not much online so it is complicated for me to do it right now. This being said, I must clarify that, similar to last year, I put some requirements with regards to the Wiki Loves Africa specific prize, so as to limit the risks of disruption and motivate editors to improve smaller languages. The rules for the prize this year may be read here m:Wiki Loves Africa 2021/WPWP. Specifically

• 1st prize - US $100 gift card
• 1st to 3rd prizes – WLA souvenirs (if the post office is more efficient than it has been in the recent 18 months...)

All WLA years are eligible ... BUT the first prize will consider edits made to ANY language EXCEPT English and French. Which suggests there should be limited disruption HERE on the English Wikipedia. Besides, to be eligible, the participant must have registered an account before January 2021 and must have made at least 300 mainspace edits to any language Wikipedia before 1st June 2021, so there is no incentive to complete newbies to participate. Last, they must abide with the general rules of the contest (descriptions and such).

Side note, per hashtag tool, 92 pages concerned on en.wp so far [126]. Last... any abuse --> block is perfectly fine by me... Anthere (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Luckily this is not the first time that the contest has been run, so the organisers should be able to link to the evaluation of last year's event against the targets that were set before it took place. Or is this just another case of "every experiment has to be adjudged a success because of sunken costs"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• ANI is for addressing specific users' conduct; may I suggest moving the broader discussion of the contest and enwiki to the pump, where it will get more attention from our community (and not turn this ANI report into a megathread). Levivich 20:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • See discussion of proposed remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remedies_(poll). -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

From a Commons perspective, we have seen an uptick in copyvios uploaded for the purpose of adding them to articles for WPWP. Not sure what the best solution for the problem is, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree we need to scrap it. Me and other editors have had to repeatedly remove an incorrect image added to the Lewis O'Brien (footballer) article by multiple editors as part of this nonsense. GiantSnowman 07:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• I stumbled across a parallel problem -- the additions not of images, but of the words "image of" in captions, so that "Joe Shmoe" now reads "Image of Joe Shmoe" (or "Portrait of Joe Shmoe"), which is not an improvement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from WPWP communities liaison organizer

Hello everyone, I am User:Deborahjay, the communities liaison lead for the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Campaign and a longtime contributor to the English Wikipedia. The WPWP international organizing team has been following this discussion closely and noting the concerns raised here. We agree that the level of disruption (mostly by new editors) is enormous and that we must moderate their participation or contributions, especially in high-traffic Wikipedias such as the EN WP.

We are genuinely sorry for these disruptions and we take responsibility for the problem. We are immediately asking organizers at the participating community level to patrol the edit-filter log and help with cleanup. They do not need to wait till the end of the campaign; we are now at its midpoint.

In other to stop or significantly reduce the disruption, we are proposing the following remedies:

Proposal 1

1. Passive warnings. When users are participating in this campaign, use an edit filter to show them messages to welcome them to English Wikipedia, repeat the applicable WPWP policies, remind them to take it slow and focus on quality, and the consequences of disruption.
2. Throttle contributions of new users. Limit users without extra userrights to 25 edits/day or less.

Proposal 2

Limit participation on the English WP to only users with 1 year old account and at least 500 edits to mainspace on the English Wikipedia.

We strongly believe that if any of the proposed steps are accepted and implemented, this would take care of the disruption and any erring editors should be blocked per the community blocking policy. Thank you. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if the contest organisers required participants (who are not already experienced editors) to go through a 'training course' before being able to edit. This would include them talking 1–1 with an experienced volunteer or the organisers to learn more about selecting relevant and high quality images, adding appropriate captions, technical details like how to actually add the image properly and where in the article to put it, etc.

Anyway, it's clear a consensus is forming and actions need to be taken, and a push towards a consensus is needed here so we can do something, so I have proposed remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remedies_(poll). Both of your proposals (or well, technically the first was mine ;)) would be part of "option 2" there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Close and consolidate

Unless there are outstanding concerns with specific users that need deliberation here, can I propose closing this section? There are lots of useful comments here, and thanks to the organizers/advisors who have shared their observations and intentions, but since this thread has become more about the event than specific users, we're having parallel conversations. The thread at AN has progressed to the point of a more concrete proposal and it would be useful to have further discussion of this event in a single place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Economy of West Bengal socks/trolls

Economy of West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article (and related articles) were discussed here in June. Things died down after socks were blocked, but it's blown back up again. I can't work out who is driving which changes, but it's definitely in need of admin attention once more. pauli133 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for three months and am hoping pauli133 will clean it up. Ponyo commented in the "discussed here in June" link and may be able to work out what else needs to be done. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a start. Can that be bumped up to ECP? I'm already getting interference. pauli133 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Since Johnuniq applied semiprotection earlier today there have been 16 more edits including edits by two users who are now blocked. There is a steady stream of red-linked accounts, suggesting the possibility of off-wiki recruitment. Keep in mind WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Blscholljim/Archive which is all about various Economy of X articles. I've increased Johnuniq's protection to ECP for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been so many Blscholljim socks and sleepers recently created. I'll update the SPI shortly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Farrel Alfaro Ho

Farrel Alfaro Ho is continuing to add unsourced information to articles despite multiple final warnings and a ban earlier this month. Is currently active, and does not seem to have responded at all to any previous warnings. Meticulo (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Farrel Alfaro Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lego Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ellen's Game of Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They seem to enjoy creating hoaxes about other versions of game shows. Their previous block was due to adding hoaxes and then disrupting by trying to remove the deletion tags. They also don't communicate at all - no response to any talk page messages and, unfortunately, they don't leave any sort of edit summary, which would at least help us to see what's going through their head with some of these edits. I don't believe that their behaviour has improved at all since the previous block and feel that a further one might be necessary to prevent further disruption and vandalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: waiting for you to block this real vandal. He is blocked for 1 year on IDWIKI for the exact same reason ("menyebarkan informasi palsu", spreading false information). @Meticulo: @Spiderone: please report to WP:AIV since I am blocked from there for reporting a sock as a vandal. Flix11 (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the reported user. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking them. From their edit history, it's quite clear that they were WP:NOTHERE and had no intention of changing their behaviour. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

GUtt01 - IDHT

GUtt01 (talk · contribs) complained about the premature NAC of 3 TfDs which, on procedural grounds, I reopened & relisted. They have now run their course and were closed as No consensus by Plastikspork. In a fit of WP:IDHT, GUtt01 renominated all 3 templates within around 12 hours of the previous closure

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#Template:Kingdom Hearts chronology
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Template:Kingdom Hearts chronology
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#Template:Final Fantasy VII chronology
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Template:Final Fantasy VII chronology
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#Template:Metal Gear chronology
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Template:Metal Gear chronology

I closed the three discussions as an abuse of process. While happy to see my use of the tools 10 days ago to reopen & relist GUtt01 now contends I shouldn't do admin stuff. This has descended into WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Cabayi (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

But TfDs guidelines don't state that when a TfD is closed either with no consensus or Keep, that a new one can be started. If there were guidelines about it, I wouldn't have done so - as it is, it doesn't stipulate anything of the sort. Besides, WP:IDHT would imply I was the nominator of the discussions, which I was not, even if I highlighted that the original TfDs had been prematurely closed by their nominator against the rules. GUtt01 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You participated in the original discussions (hist). Starting new discussions hard on the heels of the closure of the first is WP:IDHT behaviour on your part. Reverting the closure of your fresh discussions is WP:DISRUPTIVE. It shouldn't matter to you whether I am an admin or not when you are deciding whether to engage constructively or dismissively. You have gotten into a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and need to get out of it asap. Cabayi (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: May I apologise for the trouble I may have caused you. I've had a sudden thought on the matter before you made that last response, and... maybe I might have actually acted in a manner similar to WP:RECENTISM. I will rescind the discussions for now, and wait for a while to see how things pan out. If after a few months, I feel the templates have issues based on my reasons, that haven't been resolved by other methods, would that be reasonable? If you suggest a year, I will abide by it. I am so sorry, I may have let my feelings on the matter make me act irrationally. Slap me on the wrist, or give me what you feel is appropriate punishment; I won't allow it to be used as an act of forgiveness, but I realise that perhaps I was too abrupt in the matter.

I might also recommend that something is done to avoid this happening again - it would probably be appropriate to make clear in the TfD guidelines that if a discussion has ended, that a new TfD should not be made shortly after its closure: I probably could have avoided giving myself this headache. And do let the other editor know I apologize too, if I don't do it myself. GUtt01 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Opening a new TfD, immediately after the same TfD failed, is dismissive of your fellow editors, and disruptive, and thus obviously inappropriate (and so—like putting beans up your nose—doesn't need to be explicitly prohibited). And in fact I'm sure you already knew all this. Paul August ☎ 23:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Technically speaking, not really. Even so, I wasn't thinking quite clearly on this matter. I've chosen to end the matter by undoing my actions and just leaving this for a good while. GUtt01 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Signs of a deeper problem

I suspect that this matter regarding TFD is another indication that GUtt01 has issues with respecting other editors in general.

To provide some background, GUtt01 has a history of engaging in edit wars when they disagree with edits made by other editors:

1. GUtt01 was blocked in December 2019 for violating 3RR, see [127]. In a subsequent discussion on their talk page (see [128]), they said, I made a catastrophic mistake there and I gonna be left with regret on several things such as not engaging in discussion and failing to heed 3:RR. I'm gonna try my best to engage in discussion if a dispute on editing (except for vandalism and introduction of false information) occurs. (Emphasis added)
2. They engaged in another edit war in March 2020 at Sonic the Hedgehog (film) (see diffs: [129], [130], [131], and [132]); while this looks like another 3RR violation, it wasn't treated as such at the time since no one said anything about it at AN3.
3. They received another warning for edit warring in July 2020, see [133]. This report did not result in a block since they voluntarily stopped edit warring after the AN3 report was made, see discussion on their talk page. (This report also includes information regarding their history of edit warring prior to the 3RR block in 2019.)
4. To GUtt01's credit, they seem to have taken the earlier discussions to heart, as their contribution history didn't show any indication of edit warring until the above TFDs were opened.
5. The three templates at issue here were proposed for deletion at TFD alongside several other similar templates that each listed entries in a particular video game series in the order of the chronology of their respective plots. While a consensus to delete some of the other templates was found, there was no consensus to delete these three specific templates due to the complexity of their respective storylines. After the TFDs were initially closed, GUtt01 began removing these templates from various FF7/KH/MG(S) articles (see their edit history from July 9–17.) This led to a slow, but wide-ranging edit war between GUtt01 and several other editors where the templates were removed and restored from various articles that used them. There was also a point where GUtt01 — the person who instigated this particular edit war — left a notice on another editor's talk page cautioning against edit warring.
6. I got involved when I discussed the removal of the templates on GUtt01's talk page [134]. (I happened to notice what was going on because I happened to have one of the MGS articles on my watchlist.) As a result of that discussion, the three templates were relisted on TFD.
7. Those TFDs were again closed without a consensus, which led to this ANI report as discussed above.

So, these are the issues of concern that seem to be important here:

1. GUtt01 should know by now what constitutes edit warring, given the above history. The fact they did not stop and attempt to engage other editors as to how these templates should be used before I engaged them is worrying.
2. GUtt01 leaving a notice about edit warring while engaging in edit warring themself indicates, at the very minimum, a lack of self-awareness as to how their edits are being perceived and interpreted by others.
3. Disregarding that GUtt01 did not recognize Cabayi as being the same admin who initially relisted the TFDs, GUtt01 initially attempted to revert the new TFDs without attempting to understand why the new TFDs were being closed or why the new TFDs should not have been opened to begin with. I don't think that they understand that logically (and regardless of what the current TFD guidelines say), if re-opening a TFD that did not find a consensus was allowed without establishing a new basis for removal, then TFDs could go on forever until an overly-assertive editor forces a "consensus" in their favor.
4. There are indications that GUtt01 isn't responsive to input from other editors who are not admins:
   1. The July 2020 edit war only stopped after a report at AN3 was opened.
   2. The most recent edit war happened because GUtt01 interpreted the initial TFDs as providing a basis to remove the templates from the bulk of the articles that they were being included in, which was not the case given that several editors made valid arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo.
   3. GUtt01 did not attempt to engage other editors even after multiple other editors were reverting their edits.
   4. While they did stop edit warring after I specifically pointed out the issue of edit warring on their talk page, that merely deferred the problem in hindsight, as it led to the issue with the TFDs that led to this ANI report.
   5. There's also GUtt01ʻs initial reaction to Cabayi closing the most recent TFDs, as discussed above.
5. There seems to be a failure to adapt past lessons to the current situation. GUtt01 made a commitment to engage other editors in the event of a bona fide content dispute after being blocked in 2019, but that did not happen here; so, there's now a question as to the credibility of whatever other promises they may make now.

Tl;dr, I think that GUtt01 has issues getting along with other editors that will likely result in future ANI/AN3 reports if those issues are not resolved. I don't know what would be the best course of action to make that happen. Musashi1600 (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@GUtt01: What do you have to say about all of the above? Paul August ☎ 15:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: I write this, while feeling wholly ashamed and tearing up for acting irresponsibly despite promises to be responsible. I guess it is not easy to edit well when you have aspergers and learning difficulties. What I did was wrong, and shameful. I know I should have done better than this, I know I should have. I just don't want this matter being dragged out right now - I gotta learn to do better, to be better. I know I can do better in these things, and if I forget, I know the only one to blame for letting this get out of hand is myself. I still maintain the message of my first block on Wikipedia to remind me of what I did - I wish could make it so prominent a reminder, a form of self-punishment, to make me know what I shouldn't be doing. I really wish I could do better, but maybe my aspergers causes me problems because of how I don't socialise wholly a lot with other people than my own family and those I have spent enough time with. For what it is worth, I wish there could be people to say "Hey, we need to talk, because you did wrong. Can you take a moment to breathe and just read what I send you, and just tell me why you acted the way you did?" I mean...

Do editors on here, even those who become admins, ever do that? Just get people who don't mean to act but do so anyway, to get them to just talk about why they did wrong and try to help them understand better? It's not easy, but I wish I did have someone who could just help me know better. Even tell me not to get so emotional when people are reverting or disputing your edits, no matter who is right. I just... I just wish there was someone like a consuller to say, "Look. Let's try to do something different. Let's try to find another way for you to avoid this." I mean, if I have to take punishment for my actions, I would resign myself to it, but I know that an editor asking to be punished might not be learning things or admins may think that may not be the adequate solution for someone, especially if they genuinely know they did wrong.

I just wish that there was something there to help me do better. What I did above, there is no excuse. I should know quite rightly when not to do something that can become an edit war, I know I should be responsive to other editors even if they are not admins, and I know I should have honored my promise to do better. I know that for any editor, the only person who can make that change, make that editor become a better person on Wikipedia, is the very editor themselves. I just don't know now what I should do - do I improve and try to do better, or resign myself from being an editor on Wikipedia.

Whatever must be done, I know I am the only one to make that difference. It is my choice whether I become better or let others do what I am not doing for Wikipedia's future. GUtt01 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

82.16.147.172 repeatedly removing image (again)

82.16.147.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has resumed removing an image of Priti Patel from British Indians, following the expiry of the block that resulted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1072#82.16.147.172 repeatedly removing image. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

TBF, is she really the most representative image to have on there? If you want a current senior British politician, arguably Rishi Sunak is a better choice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking closer... Since it's for a section titled "Social issues - Political" it seems even more off. I'm sure a lot of reliable sources would agree that Priti Patel is a political/social issue, but not sure her face is a good image for the section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I partial-blocked the IP for edit-warring, but I don't have any objections if there's a consensus to change it to a photo of Rishi Sunak. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is discussing the matter on the article talk page. That's sad. Since both are very senior officials in the current UK government, so why not include photos of both? Just a suggestion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In British terms, the Great Offices of State are: Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary. Sunak and Patel occupy two of them. Why indeed not include pictures of both? Narky Blert (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a case where behavioral issues need to be separated from content issues. As far as the behaviour goes, this should be something that is discussed on the article talk page, if there is a disagreement, rather than edit-warred over, so a block may be appropriate. For the content, I entirely agree with Narky Blert. Why can't we have two images when two people of Indian origin occupy such major positions? Are we more restricitive of what people from ethnic minorities can achieve than even the Conservative Party? In this case Sunak occupies what is usually regarded as the senior position but Patel attracts more controversy, but that's all by-the-by. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In case there is some confusion, AFAICT, there is no content issue or dispute over to whether to include Rishi Sunak or Priti Patel. The IP first removed Priti Patel's picture with the reasoning being "Everybody is sick of seeing her face" then edit warred over it [135]. They messaged User:Cordless Larry to say " removing unnecessary pictures of Priti Patel's face is an entirely constructive public service. Please find a different example of a British person of Indian descent to use". They then changed tact and said "Reverting addition of photo for which no valid reason has been given". As this also didn't work, next they changed tact and started to argue that Priti Patel "British Indian Ugandan, not British Indian. As such, her being used as a representative of British Indians is inappropriate." with similar arguments about the definition of British Indian to follow. For these last two edits, they tried replacing her photo with File:Dadabhai Naoroji, 1892.jpg. It was User:ProcrastinatingReader above who first suggested using Rishi Sunak instead with comments following above. The IP has never suggested it, and it seems clear their opposition is solely because they dislike seeing Priti Patel for some reason. If people want to talk content issues here I'm not British but personally, given both are extremely senior politicians in the UK government, even if Rishi Sunak arguably has a slightly more important position, I'm not sure if there is reason to choose one over the other. As for both, I'm not convinced it makes sense to choose 2 current members of government as the sole representation of British Indian involvement in politics, as if they've never done anything before. Frankly, the IP's idea of Dadabhai Naoroji as an addition would probably be a better solution. If people do want to keep the IP happy, the solution would likely have to be Rishi Sunak (whether with or without Dadabhai Naoroji) or something, but would definitely require the removal of Priti Patel's photo. And solution should also consider WP:NOTGALLERY etc. Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. My point is just that I don't see how the picture makes sense in that location, or why it's the best image to have. I think the IP has a reasonable content concern, if not for the most policy compliant reasons (it seems the IP's concern is that Priti Patel, perhaps because she attracts more controversies as Phil says, isn't representative of "British Indians"). But I don't entirely understand why they were blocked over it. Wouldn't the users restoring Priti Patel's image equally be edit warring? It's largely editor discretion on which image to use, there's not really a policy making either position any more valid than the other. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with someone suggesting an alternative or additional photo on the article talk page, but the IP editor was edit warring without any policy rationale or consensus for changing the image, and their edit summaries suggested their objection to the image was personal dislike for Patel. I think a block was appropriate on behavioural grounds. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) My opinion of Patel is unprintable, but I leave it at the door. She is beyond doubt one of the most prominent British Indians today. Narky Blert (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: that seems a very generous reading of what the IP has said. I find it very hard to see anything from the IP other than a hate of Priti Patel's face and attempt to come up with reasons to remove. They may be entitled to that hate, but they aren't entitled to try to remove the image for that reason. So while I'm normally very wary of someone complaining about edit warring and a lack of discussion when the talk page is empty (as it means the person complaining also hasn't tried), this is one case when I see an exception as the IP was just making crap up to remove something because of a personal dislike. Of course we cannot ignore policy backed reasons for the removal if they could find one even if it isn't their personal motivation, but in this case I think it's fair to expect they should be the one to start the talk page discussion. As for the content issue, I stand by my view that there is zero reason why Rishi Sunak is more representative than Priti Patel. Still as Cordless Larry said, the talk page is the place for that discussion. I'm not going to start one since I DGAF. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Patel is not British Indian according to your own definitions, it's irrelevant what my motivation for pointing that out is. CordlessLarry's motivation for keeping her picture there is no more or less motivated reasoning than mine. As you can see by his contributions here, he's not thinking about the facts, he's thinking about how best to punish someone for disagreeing with him. However, he's wrong. Unless you'd all like to change the name of the page from "British Indians" to "citizens of the UK whose ancestral roots are from India" as per his statement. Please note that, as I pointed out already, according to Early_human_migrations this includes the entire planet (minus peoples who stayed in Africa or moved from Africa to the middle East, then back). I'll remind you that it takes two to "edit war" and Larry is as culpable for it as I am.

Disruptive IP- persistent hoaxes, draft/page protection removal requests, etc.

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

I've tried on multiple occasions, but at this point, it seems like the IP simply is not understanding some of the stuff on Wikipedia:

• IP has persistently made hoax articles/drafts in the past, some of which can be seen here
  • Per edits such as this and this it seems they realize that hoax/fake articles/draft is not something they should be doing anymore, but...
• IP is continuously creating new draft after new draft, including Draft:Goofy Scoopers, Draft:Family Bonding, and Draft:The Boss Maybe (among others), of which these are non-notable episodes of cartoon that will likely never get articles due to their non-notability
  • IP is also just going around to different drafts after previous declines, saying just that they believe it looks good and should be a 'non-draft' (such as this, this, and this
• IP is also constantly going around with edit requests to ask for page protection removal, just because they are a fan and think they should be allowed to edit the pages (with the same page protection process explanation response each time), including at Talk:Yo Gabba Gabba!, Talk:Nickelodeon, Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, Talk:The Loud House, Talk:Will Ferrell, and Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants.

While it's seemingly not intentional on their part, the IP is becoming quite disruptive with all of these ongoing issues. Will also note I've opened a previous ANI discussion here dealing with the same IP, that one mainly in regards to the hoax/fake drafts and articles, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#107.146.244.150 - disruptive editing, hoax articles/drafts, etc.. I also suggest a viewing of their filter log, most of which just proves the issues explained above.

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I accidentally removed your comment because I was trying to remove all of mines and not yours. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I am tired of all of this and this needs to stop. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I support a block as IP is either WP:NOTHERE or if they really are editing in good faith, WP:CIR applies. Their conduct in the face of every possible warning has just been that bad. I would normally AGF about this, but this IP has been brought to ANI before, which did nothing. The IP has been warned nearly a dozen times on their talk page, again, with no effect. They do not appear interested in editing constructively or collaboratively. They do not appear interested in learning the policies or guidelines, or in building consensus in any way. Hence, WP:NOTHERE. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I am interested in editing. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I may be inactive. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Given all the above and the random comments in other sections of this noticeboard from the IP, I've blocked for a month on the basis of WP:CIR. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• 143.159.244.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/146.90.34.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/185.69.145.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  Repeatedly removes, without explanation, wikilink for Georgina Baillie (to redirect, valid as per WP:1E) on pages BBC controversies, Johnathan Ross and Andrew Sachs. IP editor, apparently the same person under three IPs, three times removes useful & correct wikilink without explanation and despite warning. IP user has also blanked warnings from one of their talkpages. Refuses to even discuss the issue.
  Moved from the vandalism noticeboard to this board at the suggestion of editor Daniel Case.Romomusicfan (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This IP 146.90.34.153 is an LTA, violating WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:OVERLINK. Many IPs have been blocked for this (unfortunately I haven't kept a list, but a trawl of my edits to WP:AIV would turn them up), most geolocate to Portsmouth in the UK. There is a related sockpuppet case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.22.42.5. 143.159.244.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also related. DuncanHill (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1031#IP_editor,_violating_WP:NOTBROKEN,_unresponsive. DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That discussion you linked to appears to be archived. Should I start a new thread on the first page of that board and link to the archived thread? Or what else should I do next? Romomusicfan (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

To open a further Sock puppet investigation about it go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and enter 82.22.42.5 as the sockmaster. DuncanHill (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Have entered report in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.22.42.5 Hope I've filled it all out correctly.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to be flattered or offended by your description of me as an administrator, but just to be clear, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Admin corps. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

LOL okay, have sorted that bit out.Romomusicfan (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Thanks for the extra info! I knew something seemed familiar about this one but I couldn't place it ... don't we even have an LTA page for this one due to the Portsmouth connection? Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I've just been reverting and going to AIV since my initial ANI thread. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Alalch Emis

• User:Alalch Emis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2021 United States Capitol attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zangezur corridor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previous block discussion

This editor has an ongoing issue with edit warring and WP:ICANTHEARYOU talk page behavior. There were blocked from some articles related to the January 6 attack earlier this year for 3 months for this reason, but I have not seen improvement since their return. They have continued to edit war and ignore/bulldoze anyone they disagree with. Most recent example is [136] after three editors expressed varying degrees of disagreement with the idea at the related discussion. Other examples of this behavior since the expiration of their block include [137], [138], [139], [140]

Looking at their contributions, their edits are focused on the January 6 attack but similar behavior has been exhibited at Zangezur corridor: [141], [142], [143].

Attempts to address the issues with the editor have been removed without comment eg [144], [145], [146] so bringing it here. They have a good eye for article structure and organization and are quite competent with the technical aspects of editing, so I think a 1RR restriction might address the behavioral stuff and be better for the project than a topic ban, which would remove them completely from their area of interest. Thoughts?

Notifications:

[147], [148] VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not edit warring or bulldozing, and I'm not displaying WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior. I believe that my words, and actions (and outcomes thereof), speak plainly in support of my not being blameworthy. Instead I blame VQuakr for conducting themselves relatively poorly in what could still be (or very nearly could have been) a normal content dispute, which I believe to be apparent from his words and actions, such as this revert, which is clearly damaging to that article. This is how recent events can be summed up: In a recent dispute VQuakr defends certain extremely bold edits by Love of Corey (who tends not to defend said edits very actively). When these changes are disputed by myself, VQuakr merely opposes the disputant, without substantively defending the changes, and treats this highly unstable and inherently controversial newly-emerged state of the topic area as a completely regular status quo. In my trying to move the discussion along, he tends to accuse me of owning the articles in the topic area, of needing to be WP:SATISFIED, and tries to police me without grounds by posting relatively numerous attention-diverting messages on my talk page, which I find to be a facetious tactic to undermine normal dialogue. You can read more on the broader dispute which is fundamentally about article size here.

I should also add that my contribution to the Zangezur corridor article was significantly positive, and contributed to that incredibly fraught subject having a stable and readable article. When a disputant found fault with my approach to that article (and it's problematic AfD), they were essentially rebuked by an administrator -- read here.

The reason for my earlier block is unrelated to the behaviors which VQuakr now alleges.

I would also like to add that today, preceding VQuakr's request here, especially after the recent edits in the Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack article, I became aware that our dispute probably won't resolve efficiently without more significant involvement of other editors, and I started typing a Dispute resolution request. I believe our dispute should go through standard Dispute resolution. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I do not agree that your previous block is unrelated. To be fair I am not aware of any recent examples of you editing or archiving other editors' posts which was a factor then, but the issues of ownership, ignoring discussion, and repeating disputed edits were problems then and are still problems now. Even in your reply above your reference to "moving the discussion along" is indicative of part of the problem: you should not think of it as your role to moderate the discussion or decide whose reasoning has merit. Editor-focused communications are supposed to go on user talk pages; the fact that you consider input from others "facetious" is why we are here. I disagree with your characterization of what this dispute is fundamentally about (the article size discussion is just another example). VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

To clarify the claim by Alalch Emis: When a disputant found fault with my approach to that article (and it's problematic AfD), they were essentially rebuked by an administrator -- read here. El C criticized the manner in which the "disputant" conducted themselves everywhere on the AfD page; it was not an endorsement of anything Alalch Emis said or did. Schazjmd (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

VQuakr, for the sake of clarity, could you explain what is at issue with the Jake Angeli diff and the three Zangezur diffs? From the perspective of uninvolved editors, those just look like edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not repeat disputed edits then, did nothing even remotely resembling edit warring (confusingly there is something on my talk about 1RR from around that time, but it's simply a mistake; neither was 1RR active not did I even revert once to my knowledge), and that is not why I was blocked. You've mixed up then and now. It's really fundamentally unrelated with your current allegations. I participated mostly in the naming debate, and my conduct, at a certain point, became seen as "imposing and overstepping" (on the talk page, with regard to certain processes) -- no one credibly accused me of owning the article (seems superficially similar perhaps, but really it's a different kind of behavior), or making any disruptive changes to the article then. By "moving the discussion along" I did not mean moderate the discussion, I meant "discuss". I can hold an opinion that my position has more merit than yours, and that doesn't mean I am "deciding" anything. I stand by everything I've said so far in this thread, and deny any wrongdoing (I did not edit war, I did not own the article, did not bulldoze, did not display a WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior). You can't establish this to be true. A content dispute between two editors is not an "Editor-focused communication". I also stand by the assertion that the root of the dispute is a disagreement around organizing content based on perceived article size problems.

Recently it was shown that all along your sense of priorities regarding what's needed (and naturally extending from that: what's appropriate; what's generally expected, and what's bold; how to approach disputes etc.) was distorted by your erroneous belief that the article is too big, citing "300 kB" as a relevant thing. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You are not an authority on my motivation. But since you brought it up, here are two relevant diffs of mine: "300 kB", "Fine, fair point regarding raw size". The fact that you are still bringing up the former when I conceded and clarified in the latter is another example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. VQuakr (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm only bringing it up to put things in context and defend myself from allegations. The reader will easily see that I am presenting things in a relevant time frame, and will see from your replies to my comments that your bedrock argument was article size. You said "fair point" later on, only after multiple disputes have already formed up, and have shown a lack of flexibility with how to finally resolve them. It has led to you actually becoming disruptive, for example when you reverted 'Police injuries' in the 'Law enforcement' article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do you keep throwing out things that are so trivially, provably false? My "fair point" concession was 7 hours after you pointed out the issue, [149], and was my first edit anywhere on WP after your post. You didn't and don't have consensus for the 'Law enforcement' change, and your attempt to force it through was the last straw that landed us here. VQuakr (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing I've said is false. What are the other things that are "provably false"? Let's go back to your "7 hours": It's easy to see from the h2 talk section what time frame I'm referring to when saying "later on". — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Jake Angeli: edit was made paired with this talk page post that ignored the opinions of three other editors, one of whom started the discussion because they were unsure if the material should be added and two (including myself) that expressed concern that the addition would be premature. This is an example of behavior that I characterize as "bulldozing". Zangezur: reverts were made in after concerns were raised on the talk page, [150]. Those might be merely incautious since it appears to be mostly a two-editor disagreement. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Orignal poster wondered not sure how exactly to cover it in the article, I showed it. Seeing is believing. You reverted, and we have an ongoing content dispute. Great! Same poster expressed support for inclusion upon seeing the edit. All of that was excellent. I absolutely stand by my edit. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a falsehood. OP's actual reply was balanced, not an expression of support: [151]. And you again glossed over the part where you ignored the other editors' opinions and stuck your preferred version into mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

OP's reply is an expression of support. Now we have at least a formally presentable version of the disputed content point to go by, and can make drafts on the talk page, based on it, or keep discussing, propose other things etc. This is the freedom afforded to us on Wikipedia. Your criticism is not based on anything solid here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati - Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty

• Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bhauma dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Varman dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) has recently started some POV edits on Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty, e.g [152] and [153], [154] where he is removing reliable sources and replacing them by older sources that are contradicted by the newer sources. He has been reverted a number of times, but Bhaskarbhagawati would edit war ([155], [156], [157]) and stop just short of violating 3RR. Nevertheless, Bhaskarbhagawati would make minimal effort to engage in any discussion or to come to a consensus. I left a notice on this talk page to engage his opposing editors in discussion[158], but to no avail[159],[160] etc.

Bhaskarbhagawati is topic banned from the languages of Assam ([161]) and recently he was recently temporarily blocked for violating the ban ([162]). I request the administrators to take some action because he is displaying the same behavior that he did when he was banned and blocked.

Pinging El_C and EdJohnston.

Chaipau (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Two back-to-back ANI threads, two pings in a row! Do I win a prize? I want a prize! El_C 19:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Chaipau for your effort, i will reply point wise.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 19:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Here is another instance of Bhaskarbhagawati removing cited texts: [163]. This is a persistent problem with this editor who has not relented on his point of view despite many attempts to come to a consensus. Pinging Richard Keatinge who facilitated a discussion on this topic. Chaipau (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging unrelated editors to current dispute (WP:CANVASSING ?).भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 08:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:APPNOTE. Chaipau (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati, can you explain why you removed references here from the Bhauma dynasty article? At first sight, these appear to be reliable sources. If you think you received consensus for this removal of sources, can you link to wherever that occurred? EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, will reply soon.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 16:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

All right, i am responding to points raised by Chaipau. In backdrop, Chaipau is a known editor with political overtones. His nationalistic zeal overtakes academics. His recent conduct, such as diff is not sustainable in real world diffdiffdiff.

(i) Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) has recently started some POV edits on Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty These are uniform with multiple well grounded sources (1) (2), all removed by them with brute force (see point vi).

(ii) e.g [164] and [165], [166] This should atleast not brought up, it was long resolved diff and he is well informed about it diff (bluntly rejected by him).

(iii) [167] This carrying on from last point, plus infobox, capital and reliable sources are reinstated.

(iv) [[168]] The kingdom has long standing capital diff but they removed capital along-with citations without discourse (see point vi).

(v) where he is removing reliable sources and replacing them by older sources that are contradicted by the newer sources. As continuing from point ii, so called reliable sources are isolated (WP:WEIGHT), replaced by several better known authors and books.

(vi) He has been reverted a number of times Yes, they are in reverting spree diffdiff diff diff diff diffdiffdiffdiff[diffdiffdiffdiffdiff,diffdiffdiffdiffdiff diffdiffdiffdiff, by "one of the many" suspected sock-puppets of Qwertywander (their homogeneous comments about Chutia kingdom, Varman dynasty etc.) diff(Requesting a checkuser test).

(vii) but Bhaskarbhagawati would edit war Unfounded accusation.

(viii) ([169], [170], [171]) All content are as routine, WP:WEIGHT issues are addressed. They are not able to provide at minimum two sources for unacademic claims.

(ix) and stop just short of violating 3RR Never engaged in reverting like this.

(x) Nevertheless, Bhaskarbhagawati would make minimal effort to engage in any discussion or to come to a consensus. They are informed several times about it beforehand.

(xi) I left a notice on this talk page to engage his opposing editors in discussion[172] Chaipau post such custom threatening messages on talkpages of other editors diff diff who don't bow to his wishes, its not unprecedented, he threaten to report me here if i don't follow his commands, it is his way of achieving consensus real quick.

(xii) but to no avail[173],[174] As mentioned above his restated his commitment to use isolated sources over academic consensus.

(xiii) They are removing sections, contents, reliable citations forcefully ad infinitum (see point vi), without consensus.

(xiv) In past, he has relentlessly taken content disputes here, explicitly for those editors he distaste, for which he was commanded against diff.

(xv) Chaipau is a old edit warriror diffdiffdiffdiffdiff, who either war vigorously or encourage others to force unilateral consensus. He was blocked for fierce edit-warring in recent past diff, though he promised to behave, it seems that is not happening anytime soon diff.

Thanks ! भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 18:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

References used for Bhaskarbhagawati's post
References

Hello Bhaskarbhagawati. The fact that you disagree with User:Chaipau is noted. Can you please answer my earlier question, whether you received consensus anywhere for your removal of references from the Bhauma dynasty article? EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Link is above (point ii), thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 21:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bhaskarbhagawati. I was requesting a link to a talk page discussion where other editors agreed with you that certain references you disapprove of ought to be removed from the Bhauma dynasty article. You did provide two links to discussions. In the first of these, the only two other participants are now blocked. The only other link to a discussion was a thread at Talk:Bhauma dynasty where you and Chaipau discuss the matter and don't come to any agreement. This doesn't amount to a consensus in your favor. Both you and Chaipau have been blocked in the past; you are the only one still under a topic ban. My conclusion is that your removal of sources from the Bhauma dynasty article was not justified by any talk page consensus. We don't usually like to see people removing references from articles without a good reason. (Makes it appear that you are cherry-picking sources to keep only the ones that agree with you). If this thread is closed without action, you should at a minimum promise not to continue warring at Bhauma dynasty until consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I am OK with any action/inaction on this report as long as the edits the conditions set down are met. Nevertheless, I would like to point out the following for the records:

• I was not involved in the recent edit warring of Bhauma dynasty.
• The [175] is an example of WP:OTHERPARENT. The language is not at all neutral and it contained lies. For example: "Paromita Das (2005) andis faculty in Gauhati University, India; has hardly written any academic works before." is not at all supported, since Paromita Das is published ([176], forgive the terrible formatting)
• The WP:RS response was for Das (2005) alone, but Bhaskarbhagawati had removed Shin (2018) and Sen (1984) as well [177].
• And the edit summary is also not truthful. It is not only Das and Shin who see the Naraka story as a myth, but Sircar as well [178].

Chaipau (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discourse was concerning reliability of sources, same was meticulously talk over in talk page diff. The agreement was reached to pull to WP:RSN diff, resolved, they pronounced it as matter of policy not consensus "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.". He was effectively informed.

The consensus (WP:RSN) retract to 12 October 2017 while they are blocked not long ago (June 23, 2020). Yes, i agree talk-page dialogues are not binding, hence taken to pertinent noticeboard for binding consensus. The unrelated minuscule block decision was taken in my absence (i haven't violate the ban), based on misapprehension topic ban (you). I will appeal in Arbitration Enforcement. As divulged it is matter of policy, we don't use isolated sources (i have no concern if aided by secondary).

Chaipau raised some new points. He do facilitated warring. Policy matters are not WP:OTHERPARENT. They are faculty of Gauhati University but her ideas are not supported in academic circles. Different views of Sen and Shin isolated as well, not buttressed by academicians. The legendary status is not in question diff. She is pointing towards origins, ethnicity etc, and calling him as historical figure. Chaippau pinged you not without reason, he is aware of lengthy tussle between us (you and me) over topic ban. Before i make any promises, I insist redressal of conduct issues (prelude) brought in fifteen points above. Thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 07:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Without adding to the walls of text, I find that Ed Johnston's comments above are valid as are Chaipau's. I don't find significant merit in Bhaskarbhagawati's remarks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I am anticipating Richard Keatinge sooner than later, will reply soon, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 10:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is amusing. Bhaskarbhagawati is citing some meta comments from 2017 from a user who has since been banned to remove references published in 2018—after the remarks were made in WP:RS! This is a rather perverted use of WP:RS, I think. Chaipau (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Without adding to the walls of text, I find that Ed Johnston's comments above are valid as are Chaipau's. I don't find significant merit in Bhaskarbhagawati's remarks", Richard Keatinge wrote. Videlicet, they imply they don't understand current state of affair, notwithstanding X (Chaipau) is right anyway. Not unprecedented diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff, the ideal illustration of deep-rooted WP:TAGTEAM, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 16:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati removed referenced texts not only in Bhauma dynasty, but also in Indo-Aryan migration to Assam [179]. Here too, he removed Taher (2001), actually without any edit summary. This is the same pattern of edit he has made in Bhauma dynasty. I added this incident in addendum. So, could you, Bhaskarbhagawati, please explain why you removed the reference to Taher (2001)? This kind of disruptive behavior is not a one-off for you, but a sustained pattern that has been going on for a decade now, for which you were topic banned. I tagged Richard Keatinge because he has seen your behavior and edit patterns up close in Indo-Aryan migration to Assam page. Tag team? No! Chaipau (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Refusal to drop the stick by Manwë986

Manwë986 has refused to drop the stick on a particular photo they want used on Lee Kuan Yew, with their preference to use an older photo of a deceased man. While there's no active policy to enforce the usage of a younger photo, Manwë986 has reverted many instances of editors changing the photo without a valid reason.

• Added by Kohlrabi Pickle Reverted by Manwë986 on 5 February
• Readded by an IP, reverted by Manwë986 on 5 February

While the photo in question here is copyrighted, Kohlrabi Pickle was not aware of it. Manwë986's reversion was not out of copyright concerns but their insistence of a photo of an older man, going against the first consensus to depict a younger man instead.

• First consensus on 26 January

This is demonstrated by Manwë986's lack of sufficient knowledge over copyright when they tried to upload copyright photos and engaged with me on my talkpage over copyright. I created a vote to judge the concensus of the community, which Manwë986 failed to participate in, but nevertheless was clear not to use the photo. A mild warning to them to cease pursing the matter unless they can find a better photo was also concurred upon.

• Second consensus on 2 May

Manwë986 returned to my talkpage on 12 July, refusing to drop the stick numerous times despite my recommendations, which is their right. I finally re-directed them to discuss it on the Lee Kuan Yew talkpage instead. A third consensus, while acknowledging copyright concerns as the main factor, also cites my argument to use a younger photo.

• Third consensus on 16 July

Manwë986 threatens to continue pursuing the matter. While I initially ignored the final remark, they returned again on 27 July to yet again reinstate their preferred version of the photo.

Per Manwë986's refusal to drop the stick per WP:IDHT and actively going consensus, I am requesting for some administrative action to be imposed. Seloloving (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Because there are many freely licensed photos of Lee Kuan Yew available on Wikimedia Commons, it is crystal clear that no image restricted by copyright will be used. Do you understand that, Manwë986? Selecting among freely licensed photos is a routine content dispute. Since this has been a contentious issue for at least six months, a formal Request for comment may be the best way to establish a broad and lasting consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Currently, I think there is consensus, though not broad and lasting, to keep the current 1975 photo of LKY. While I agree with Cullen to have a RFC to establish a broad and lasting consensus, currently there is only a different opinion on the choice of photo so perhaps any RFC be done after seoloving's revamp?

And can we use this discussion as the current firm consensus to keep the current 1975 photo as the main photo to be used? Please do note the comments in the article's talkpage as well. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that this user has been pretty disruptive and refusing to acknowledge consensus, despite the fact that there have already been three rounds of discussions on the issue. He has also tried to garner support from other users to support his stance, as stated on this user talk page (the user rejected to do so), which somewhat violates Wikipedia:Canvassing. Also, I don't mind if the 1975 photo remains in use.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

With four opposes on the talkpage, Manwë986 reinstates the photo again with an edit summary I just can't let him be disgraced like this. Clearly, this is a issue with competence and refusing to adhere to consensus, and I would recommend for a limited topic ban on Manwë986, covering any discussion of the lead photo for a period of time, or changing it, with an admin's discretion on the timeframe. Seloloving (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Having failed to gain consensus on the talkpage, Manwë986 is now edit warring while this AN/I is open [180][181]. I would suggest a partial block from the page is warranted at the least. CMD (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Feel free to unblock if Manwë986 shows some kind of a clue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:COI account apparently used by multiple editors

Betinfo (talk · contribs) has had one purpose in twelve years, creating and editing what appears to be an autobiography, Peter Betan. Recent discussions have proved really odd on the matter of multiple users [182]; [183]; [184]; [185]; [186]. At various times the user has claimed to be Mr. Betan, at others says the article is not an autobiography, and is consistently referring to the account as used by "we." Probably this all goes away once the article is deleted, but for numerous reasons, the account is being used in a manner contrary to our guidelines. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Was actually about to create a thread about Betinfo; he's working on bludgeoning the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Betan with wall-o'-text arguments that verge on boilerplate, and has been doing so for the past 48 hours (he's done it to the last four Delete arguments). I'm getting tired of writing out what amounts to the same counterargument and just adding more words to it each time and there's not much indication he'll stop; can we get him partial-blocked from the AfD until it runs its course? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Judging from their talk page history they also can't keep from uploading the same copyrighted image repeatedly.Citing (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why the user hasn't at least been topic blocked [187]. Until then, the bludgeoning continues, in a spiral that grows more frustrated. There's a reason we have WP:COI guidelines, and this is exhibit A. 2601:188:180:B8E0:BD4A:4B03:FD4C:CE7 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I was close to a stronger sanction when I warned them for NPA, Jéské Couriano, but then I realized I'd voted in the AfD. That discussion would benefit from some winter precipitation, which would have a side effect of ending the disruption. Star Mississippi 01:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Per WP:NOTHERE, personal attacks, seemingly shared account, badgering, self-promotion, repeated copyright concerns. Take your pick. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Baikal seal

I didn't want to take this to AIV because it a. might not be urgent vandalism and b. this was not past multiple warnings.

Lately, there's been a few users vandalizing on Baikal seal by adding an image of a Baikal seal who has become a meme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Baikal_seal&oldid=1035669788 vandalism by User:Wormsbee

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Baikal_seal&oldid=1034658584 vandalism by User:CementEater99

I suspect socks or vandalism-only accounts. The meme picture is a picture of this exact kind of seal, but I don't think the image is free use, so I think it violates policy. (I got someone on Commons to speedy tag the images for copyvio) wizzito | say hello! 02:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ve applied semi-protection for a week; let’s see if that brings it under control. Ping me if it proves insufficient, and consider reporting issues like this to WP:RFPP in the future. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Giano insists on trolling

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

---

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

So, four years ago I made an entirely routine WP:ORGNAME block. The user selected a new username and I unblocked them myself. Fast forward to yesterday when Giano, for some reason, felt compelled to troll me over it [188]. I think we can all agree that was trolling, commenting out-of-the-blue on an uncontroversial block from over four years ago and pinging the blocking admin to see the sarcastic comments made. So I reverted it as trolling, Giano has chosen to revert again. Somebody please deal with this as you see fit, I probably won't comment on it again as Giano doesn't merit that much of my time. He doesn't like me and thinks I suck as an admin. That's fine, this isn't a popularity contest and I already am well aware of his opinion and don't need to be trolled over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Giano obviously can't see the deleted content of their old userpage, which made it abundantly clear that there were multiple people using the account (so "curator" should be plural, not possessive). But apart from that, his comment is spot on. You did a fine job, applying policy correctly and explaining yourself clearly, and you are obviously an asset to the project. – bradv^🍁 04:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This thread is arb-heavy yo! Honestly, I'm a longtime Giano fan, but even I can't make sense of this one. It's such a routine block/unblock, I've done like a million of these myself (I consider myself to be an asshat to the project, btw!). El_C 04:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Not surprised. Don't approve. I don't expect anything to happen. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Giano does something silly but mostly harmless. People overreact. Nothing will happen. Must be Wednesday. --Jayron32 17:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that the response is always "well everyone knows he's a troll, what else is new?" Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that our first response to being trolled is to do anything except nothing at all. So I guess we're all going to be unsatisfied today. --Jayron32 17:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What should our second, third, fourth, fifth, etc., responses to trolling be? You're not suggesting this is the first time, of course? What do we do when an editor repeatedly trolls another editor? Ignore it? Hmm... I for one would support a one-way IBAN if Beebs wants one. Levivich 17:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt my feelings or anything that he doesn't care for me, the feeling is mutual for sure, my concern is more that he may harass someone who actually does care what he has to say. However, it is clear that the broader community is willing to turn a blind eye to over a decade of outright trolling, so I've used the "mute this user" function so he cannot ping or email me anymore. I don't like to do that, being an admin I prefer to be open to communication about my actions, but Giano doesn't communicate with me, just spews petty insults, so no big loss. Normally we ban trolls but I guess this one gets a free pass simply because he's been here so long. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, if the frequency of these is not insignificant, then maybe. But otherwise, I've experienced plenty of annoying acerbic comments from established users that are also weirdly non sequitur, but myself, I don't usually bring it to ANI. I just point out the absurdity of it to the user in question and move on. I mean, does it really matter if the annoying comment stands, in the talk page of a user whose last edit was in 2017? Who even sees it, except for the pinged admin being provoked. But to each their own, I guess. Giano looks silly (perhaps even a bit mean-spirited) for their out-the-blue: Hey, Beebs, you (still) suck! As does Beebs for their: Hey everyone, I was told I suck, but actually I don't. Meh. --Asshat out! El_C 18:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, obviously, there's a difference between trolling (occasionally) and being a troll outright (unrelentingly). El_C 18:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Giano is a textbook WP:UNBLOCKABLE so of course it won't happen, but like Levivich I would also support a 1-way IBAN. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I think the frequency of these is not insignificant, having filed the last ANI thread about this, and I was right that this would continue, as it has. It will continue until we stop giving him a free pass. Levivich 21:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, this is a weird conversation threading/positioning. Anyway, again, I dunno. Maybe...? But, somehow, I just don't think the RexxS blowout is on-par with this dumbity, which is much more asshat-innocuous. This is the thing with Beeblebrox: they are one of the most influential Wikipedians around, being both an ArbCom member and a WPO powerhouse, so he should expect some extra-scrutiny, even if unfair (obviously, that doesn't feel great to him, but it is what it is). To sum up: I'm still undecided as to what if anything should be done here (i.e. I'm helping!). El_C 21:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think our policy of asking people to declare COI, but to prohibit doing so in their username is pretty stupid. Similarly, shared organisational accounts are allowed on many other Wikimedia projects (the German Wikipedia has a dedicated process for this) but here we ask people to use an additional private account instead of the shared SUL one. Our policy of blocking people over this before even explaining the issue to the user is also very unfriendly. We managed to make the editor in question leave four years ago, after Beeblebrox correctly applied our policies. (Is this what this thread is about?) —Kusma (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(It is not.) El_C 18:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I've had experienced users say far worse things to me, and just brushed it off. This is barely "trolling" at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Kusma we do not prohibit people from declaring their COI in their username - you could change your username today to User:Kusma@whereveryouwork if you like, or User:Whereveryouworkkusma, or even User:Whereveryouwork_K. You just can't be User:Whereveryouwork. I would not support a change to the policy that prohibits shared accounts - I don't relish the prospect of trying to communicate/collaborate with someone who turns out to be a bunch of different people. Account creation is free - there is no reason why multiple people at the same organisation can't create multiple accounts to edit from.

I don't agree with Tryptofish that this was barely trolling at all. Worse things happen at sea and all that, but it was a barbed comment on a talk page that had been untouched for years, and it served no purpose at all other than to needle someone for a decision they made (which is a really bad way of convincing them that they might have done it differently). Pointless, uncollaborative and, frankly, textbook trolling. If Giano is the sort of person that I hope he is, he'll recognise that he was wrong, and apologise. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate how this is something where reasonable people can disagree, and I think that your view is indeed entirely reasonable. But I don't think that the purpose was really to change Beeblebrox's mind, and there's a difference, however subtle, between barbed criticism and trolling. I get the feeling that this was not an isolated occurrence, and I would be more inclined to call it trolling – and worthy of intervention – if it were a case of Giano following Beeblebrox around and pestering him at every step. But we are asked here to respond to just one diff. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, well, two diffs actually - the original comment, and then the reverting Beeblebrox's removal of it. And then there's this response, which I've just noticed, and seems to indicate that he thinks there's nothing wrong with what he did. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, I, on the other hand, would rather communicate with the press office of SomeCompany than with NamedIntern1, NamedIntern2, NamedIntern3 and NamedIntern4, all of whose COIs I have to establish individually. It seems so much easier to deal with them if they share an account. About half of de:Kategorie:Benutzer:Verifiziert are accounts that we'd block as "implying (potential) shared use" (and many of them have been blocked). Note also that we don't just block accounts because they are in fact shared, we block them (without warning) if it looks as if they might possibly become shared. I find it very difficult to see how Wikipedia is improved by blocking museums like User:Museum für Kommunikation, Bern on this wiki. Such accounts are legal on Commons and dewiki and (I think) actually on most wikis. A museum that donates content to the Commons has to tell the people they hired to do Wikipedia-related work to use the museum account for the Commons and for all languages except English, where they should use individual accounts instead. It's just insane that we have SUL but completely incompatible username and account use policies. —Kusma (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, we'll have to agree to differ on the one versus many question - I want to know that I'm talking to an individual so that I can keep track of a discussion. I think we're getting off topic though - whatever any of us feel about policy or its application, pointless snark is never helpful. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish's comments above. I would add that the words in the title of this thread appear inflammatory; do you like trout, Beeblebrox? Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Post-close comment. The closer's statement about "everyone seems to agree" is counter-factual, although that does not in any way change the outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Sennagod and WP:BLP policy with regard to the Layla Love biography.

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

Layla Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sennagod first appeared on Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago, with a query at WP:BLPN over the Wikipedia biography of Layla Love - an American photographer. Sennagod seemed to have doubts over whether Love met Wikipedia notability criteria. I looked at the article, which certainly appeared somewhat promotional, removed obvious puffery from the lede, and replied to Sennagod's query, stating that in my opinion, despite the puffery, Love probably met Wikipedia's notability criteria. [189]

This clearly didn't satisfy Sennagod, who then went to Talk:Layla love, starting a section suggesting that Love was using a 'fake name' - apparently there is an actress in the adult film industry who shares the name. Furthermore, it seems that Google has confused the two, using text from the Wikipedia photographer biography in their 'Knowledge Graph' alongside a photograph of the actress. I explained to Sennagod that Wikipedia had no control over Google, and that nothing could be done about that here.

From then on it went steadily downhill. Sennagod is apparently set on getting the Love biography deleted - a not entirely unreasonable position to take, as whether Love meets notability standards is a reasonable enough question, given the sources cited. What hasn't however been reasonable, in my opinion, is the way Sennagod has gone about this. I have repeatedly tried to explain that notability depends not on whet Wikipedia has to say about a person, but what coverage in external sources does. Sennagod had tried Proposed Deletion (twice), and started an AfD discussion - again reasonable enough, allowing for a misunderstanding about how PROD works. What isn't reasonable though - or permissible per WP:BLP policy in my opinion - is the way Sennagod has been using Talk:Layla Love as a platform to make all sorts of accusations and insinuations about the subject of the biography, basically accusing her of misrepresentation, while presenting nothing in the way of evidence beyond pure supposition (it should be noted that we have no evidence that Love was responsible for the article at all). Beyond the 'fake name' claim, Sennagod has accused Love of lying with regard to photographs of Pink and Bjork, [190], of fabricating a nonprofit organisation [191], and of lying about the involvement of Gloria Steinem with the nonprofit. [192] Likewise, Sennagod's AfD nomination [193] contains numerous allegations about the subject of the biography - allegations that simply shouldn't appear there, since they are unsourced speculation, based, like most of what else Sennagod has to say with regard to Love on a clearly hostile interpretation of 'original research' through Google - evidently Sennagod thinks that something not being findable through a Google search is proof enough that it didn't happen.

I have repeatedly tried to explain to Sennagod how Wikipedia determines notability, and asked that the denigration of the biography subject be stopped, as not only off-topic but contrary to WP:BLP policy, to no avail. The denigration continues, along with numerous personal attacks on other contributors. The latest posts to Talk:Layla love include accusations of "deception" with regard to "selling clothing" [194] and of a contributor "trying to put in false information to associate the subject with a celebrity". This has clearly gone too far, in my opinion, and I would suggest at the very minimum Sennagod needs to be blocked from the Love article, its talk page, and the AfD, and topic-banned from the entire subject. The AfD is ongoing, it could go either way, and I think Wikipedia is quite capable of deciding the notability issue without the efforts of a contributor who clearly has some sort of personal grudge or other improper motivation, and who has been using Wikipedia as a soapbox to pursue it. Regardless of whether Love's work merits an article, she doesn't deserve this sort of abuse, as WP:BLP policy makes entirely clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - About four days ago, Sennagod filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, saying that the article about Layla Love should not exist. I advised them that they could nominate the article for deletion, and closed the request as not including any other users. (It was also otherwise not the type of dispute handled by DRN.) I have not yet reviewed the Layla Love article well enough to !vote in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - A nomination to delete a biography of a living person is itself subject to the policy on biographies of living persons and should not contain unverified statements about the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The statements aren't just 'unverified' - some imply dishonesty approaching criminal behaviour, while presenting no meaningful evidence whatsoever. If they weren't so patiently ridiculous, I'd have asked for them to be RevDel'd. Comments like that don't belong anywhere on this website, regardless of who they relate to. I'd appreciate it if someone would actually comment on the substantive issue here, which is what is going to be done about this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have given Sennagod a BLP discretionary sanctions alert. The editor is now aware of the consequences of any BLP violations occur going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

And on it goes: see Sennagod's latest edit. [195] A clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. Sennagod cannot possibly know what took place in private conversations between Love and Steinem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for 31 hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

What's appropriate as an RfC comment?

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

---

There's currently an RfC at Talk:Andy Ngo#Request for comment: "Journalist" in lede about whether Andy Ngo should be called a journalist. I'm in a dispute with FormalDude who has decided to insult Steven Crowder during this discussion, saying "Hard to believe people are still trying to call Ngo a journalist. They'd likely call Steven Crowder a journalist too". [196] When I challenged them on this, FormalDude said "Fuck Steven Crowder. What's the issue with that?" [197] as well as "I'll hate on Steven Crowder if I damn well please, especially if it has relevancy to people calling Andy Ngo a journalist." [198]

This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, first of all. The RfC is about whether to call Andy Ngo a journalist. FormalDude's opinion on Steven Crowder is irrelevant here. Second of all, even if it was somewhat relevant, the follow-up comments are a blatant violation of the spirit of WP:BLP. You can't just attack living people in talk page comments like this. I don't believe this is OK and I'd like to see BLP actually enforced for once. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 04:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I apologize and am sorry for any violation of WP:BLP my comments had.

(My comments saying "Fuck Steven Crowder" are in the section Talk:Andy_Ngo#Journalist_in_lead, not the RfC.) ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 04:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I mischaracterized the context of these remarks. Sorry. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 04:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not an excuse, but I was not in the best mood with @Chess due to his prior accusation that I was WP:Canvassing here in the RfC survey. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 05:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• No, of course. As I said there: in my opinion the American politics topic area would be vastly improved if we actually enforced WP:BLP (which applies to talk pages) for people talking about their political enemies. And I say this as someone who does not watch or care about Crowder at all and disagrees with his right-wing politics. It's just a consistent pattern by various editors in the topic area. I don't see how editors who feel so strongly they can't resist going off on the talk page about their political opponents can be confidently trusted to edit neutrally on articles about people from that same political side. People can go to Twitter and Reddit to grind their axes. The comment Chess quotes above comparing Ngo and Crowder seems to also cast WP:ASPERSIONS on those of us who voted to describe Ngo as a journalist per various RS which do so. FormalDude says he is sorry above, which is good and I appreciate that, but I think this should be a wake-up call for him to make sure he is really following WP:NPOV in how he edits and discusses. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I promise it was not my intent to cast any aspersions on editors with opposing viewpoints from me. I merely wanted to point out a possible similar opinion that opposing editors might hold about another person (Crowder) in a similar-ish field, which was then poorly double down upon by my use of expletives. My original statement, however, was open to whatever other editors may–or may not–think about Crowder. I hope that would not be categorized as an accusation of misbehavior of people who disagreed with me, because, again, that was not my intent.

I will make sure I am following WP:NPOV as closely as possible though, which is one of the reasons I've recused myself of editing articles about Steven Crowder, because I do have a personal conflict of interest bias against him. I can certainly agree with you that some editors who make comments similar to mine are often not be trusted to edit neutrally. It was a poor choice for me to make that comment. I am not one of those editors though, and I have never had a NPOV dispute in the mainspace that wasn't an honest good faith mistake. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 05:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• No, while incivil, I do not believe the comment in question to by revdelable. Cheers.09:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs)
• Dunno about revdel eligibility or what the appropriate action should be, but 1) such comments shouldn't occur on talk pages; editors opinions about subjects, particularly their opinions about BLPs, need not be expressed onwiki. 2) some appropriate administrative action should be taken when that idea is violated. It just raises tensions unnecessarily, particularly on American politics articles, and is entirely unhelpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • To expand on revdel eligibility, admins would know better, but just wanted to note that skimming the Steven Crowder article it seems to me that he fits into the Donald Trump category of persons. I've noticed that insults directed at Trump and similar high profile people (eg Tucker Carlson) are frequently made onwiki without consequence, including by admins, which somewhat sets the standard I think for what's considered improper. In particular, high profile living persons whose Wikipedia article says they've engaged in discriminatory comments or harassment tend to be considered fair game. Hence, especially since saying "Fuck XYZ" is not even an insult (although saying a BLP is "vehemently immoral" might be), I doubt it's eligible for revdel or sanctions. (regardless of whether I think it should be) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Chess, if you think it might violate the BLP, then PLEASE don't put it in the title of the thread--come on now. Drmies (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indeed, not to be harsh, but that ought to be intuitive. Talk:Andy Ngo = 164 page watchers. ANI = 8,241 page watchers. El_C 12:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• ”Fuck XYZ” isn’t a BLP issue (what is it even saying about the BLP?) or even incivility (it’s not an insult to an editor). It is however WP:NOTFORUM and should be reverted (not revdel’d) on that basis. DeCausa (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think the point is more general: about quoting a purported BLP-sketchy line in a section header, in a venue that's viewed nearly 100 times as much as the original one. But, that's right, no revdel needed. El_C 12:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I wasn’t responding to that - just the general point. Probably put it in the wrong place. DeCausa (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Not BLP violation. I'm involved with the topic but not this particular discussion. I don't think comments like this are at all helpful. Sometimes they are said out of frustration, sometimes to make a point, sometimes to express feelings about the one being... well F'ed. Still, as an expression of opinion it doesn't violate BLP so long as the target isn't an editor. This isn't a BLP violation because it doesn't accuse the target of anything. Springee (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Phew, that was a close one, Springee. You almost fucked up! (Thank you, thank you, I got Dad jokes for every occasion.) El_C 13:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• The statement "this behaviour did not violate WP:BLP" is technically true, but very much not the point. Quite arguably, BLP should be applied here, since the behaviour discussed (purely invective commentary without constructive purpose for developing encyclopedic content) violates at least the spirit of WP:ATTACK. But at the same time, this question is very much superfluous considering that our WP:HARASSMENT policy very much does apply here, by way of WP:HNE: "In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who post such material in any namespace may be indefinitely blocked."(emphasis added). An unqualified "Fuck Person X" is undeniably harassment as it is contemplated in that policy: we wouldn't even be arguing this point if we were talking about an editor, but as just the second sentence of the policy makes clear: "Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here." (again, emphasis added). Furthermore, this article falls under discretionary sanctions twice over, being covered via WP:NEWBLPBAN and WP:AMPOL.

Mind you, even FormalDude recognizes the inadvisability of the comment. Even if we were to adopt some truly myopic misisng-the-forest-for-the-trees standard with regard to whether this kind of comment violates community supported curbs on disruptive behaviour, it still raises the question of WP:tendentious editing and of bias so strong that it raises questions about the ability of the person using such excoriating rhetoric to contribute in related areas, and might easily become the basis for the community beginning to contemplate topic bans for certain areas. Now I'm making a broad point here in order the underscore how incorrect I think are the handful of comments above that suggest there is no policy violation or anything that could be met by sanction here: that is very clearly not an outlook in conformity with policy or community consensus. But I'm also not calling for a sanction because FormalDude has seemed to get out ahead of this issue and owned up to it being non-productive and dipping into WP:disruptive. But I will also note that this is not the first time in the last few days where I've felt like we were giving FormalDude the benefit of the doubt in an ANI thread relating to their approach to discussion. Speaking solely for myself, if he ends up back again soon for anything similar, I'm going to start feeling like it's time for the community to get proactive here. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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

AmorLucis

• AmorLucis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juneteenth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:NPOVN#Intersectional Bias in the Juneteenth Article--Multiple Editors Blocking Inclusion of Diverse Voices

User:AmorLucis has been fighting their corner over what may well be OR at Juneteenth (and elsewhere) for over week now. The problem is they are using this kind of language [[199]] [[200]] despite repeated warnings (and one block). It is becoming a time sink, and despite a willingness (they claim [[201]]) to drop it the tone of that is an attack on users and on the project (and I would argue with language like "gaslit" an attempt to morally blackmail us into giving them what they want.

I was not going to report this but the first diff, made after the claim they would drop this, shows I do not think they will stop fighting their corner. In fact, they are an wp:spa that does not seem to be here for any other reason than to promote these views on the topic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked AmorLucis on July 14 after they responded to Slatersteven with this [202], following admonishments from me about treating other editors as opponents [203] [204]. They did modify their behavior somewhat, for which I thanked them, receiving this [205] response. I blocked shortly after, when they went after Slatersteven. Once the block expired, they adjusted their approach somewhat, but the walls of words persist, and they are still characterizing disagreement as "gaslighting." Rejection of other editors' advice has been rationalized as "setting boundaries," ignoring the project's own boundaries. I offer no comment on the content dispute,apart from the observation that it appears to involve an obscure synthesis tangential to Juneteenth. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

AmorLucis is here for one purpose, to correct the injustice of how the literature about Juneteenth does not adequately address women's issues. But Wikipedia exists to summarize the literature. It does not exist to replace the written record with new concepts. So AmorLucis is not going to find satisfaction on Wikipedia unless they decide to drop the stick. They need to adjust to Wikipedia's policies rather than trying to force a new policy. AmorLucis must start listening to and accepting sensible advice from veteran editors. Binksternet (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I've pointed out to this editor in that NPOV that despite their claims that they are being personally attacked (of which they appear to be turning around to make this accusational), none of the editors in the NPOV nor the Juneteenth talk page have made personal attacks against them; its all been arguments against the logic for inclusion of their material, commenting on the contributions. I've replied just now to their last post at NPOV to review NPA and that no one is attacking them as an editor, so their treatment of the dismissal of their reasoning for inclusion as a personal afront isn't helpful to consensus discussion. --Masem (t) 13:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

For information, non-admin comment: There was also some discussion about this in the Teahouse, a couple of paragraphs down here [206]. I had what I felt was quite a useful exchange with AmorLucis on my talk page (a bit of a wall-of-words)[207]. My impression was that AmorLucis is a good person, but trying to right a wrong in the wrong place; I suggested they find a more appropriate forum and accept that WP isn't here to have a moral viewpoint (in fact since we are reliant on secondary sources, we're likely to be last on the scene when moral viewpoints change). I am concerned that some of the language (gaslighting, malewashing) may almost be buzzwords that have become the natural vocabulary of this sort of fight, but which we (unsurprisingly) perceive as aggressive. In fairness to AmorLucis, I don't think they see the language as anything more than telling it how it is. But any male editor is going to feel bruised when accused of malewashing. This is not going to go away; AmorLucis is not going to change their point of view, or how strongly they feel about it, so unless they can be encouraged to find a better outlet, Juneteenth is going to remain a conflict zone. Elemimele (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a male editor who couldn't care less about the "malewashing" comments because I see it as just a simple statement of fact: the contributions and experiences of women are excluded from countless histories and venues, and calling this "malewashing" seems an appropriate neologism.

Even if I didn't immediately understand what the term referred to, I can't find anything objectionable about it.

I've also been trying to help Amor at my talk page and at their sandbox, and I have to say a few things:

1. There is a large disconnect between what editors here believe Amor is trying to accomplish versus what they actually seem to be trying to accomplish. Their goal is to add material about the experiences of Black women, specifically at Juneteenth. Their long-term goal seems to be to get some representation of the discussions around Black women within intersectional feminism better represented in this project, which is a laudable goal. However, their overuse of social-justice jargon and their sheer (overwhelming, almost) verbosity are obfuscating that, giving the impression of a POV pusher here to "fix" what WP says about those subjects.
2. The complaints here about the difficulty of dealing with them are not without merit. Amor is sensitive and prickly about things, and seems more interested in venting about their past experiences here than in building content worth inclusion. I've tried to keep them focused, but my own patience is not infinite. I waffled between supporting or opposing a block per WP:DISRUPT, but decided it would be better for me to lay out my thoughts more fully.
3. The discussions I've seen at Talk:Juneteenth and at WP:NPOVN and here have been quite bitey, though not to a sanctionable degree. AmorLucis' frustrations are understandable from their perspective. Their reception to editing here was essentially a stone wall, and some of the objections to their edits are downright nonsensical.
4. AmorLucis might grow into a valuable contributor on subjects of interest to intersectional feminism, if they can learn to communicate better, and grasp our sourcing and compositional standards. That's my goal in helping them.
5. Amor will categorically not ever become a valuable editor if I'm the only one willing to help at their sandbox. If a couple of editors could dig up some sourcing (there's some at my talk to get started), and review and summarize it to add to the work at Amor's sandbox, and engage with Amor with some patience to explain what we're doing and why, that would probably be the best outcome of this thread. If that is not the case, and Amor doesn't take notice of what's being said here, then I'm afraid a block might be in order, just to put an end to the back and forth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I did try to help AmorLucis in a general way, but I didn't try to help incorporate intersectionalism into the Juneteenth article because I don't happen to believe it's a correct use of intersectionalism. In fairness to AmorLucis, I got a polite and appropriate response when I said this on my talk-page. MPants is right that communication is key. It is difficult to communicate about intersectionalism; it suffers from all the difficulties of discussing discrimination, and it's new and sometimes ill-defined. If I disagree that intersection is relevant in a particular situation, the intersectionalist will reply "that's because you're still living in a pre-intersectionalism era and don't recognise your own prejudices" and once I've been told that I'm getting it wrong because of an unconscious bias, I have no way to reply - how can I argue that I'm not guilty of not knowing something that by definition I don't know I have/lack? The big question is this: is AmorLucis' editing at Juneteenth actually preventing other editors from maintaining the balance of the article, and is it wasting prodigious amounts of other people's time? We can't expect all editors to be neutral; sometimes neutrality is achieved by different editors with conflicting points of view agreeing on an article that holds the middle ground. If AmorLucis can accept this, I don't see a problem. But I've been staying clear of Juneteenth recently as it's not really my subject. Elemimele (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to publicly air both sides of this controversial issue. First, I had already explicitly publicly disengaged from all public forums on this discussion before this incident report was filed.

My good faith edit to include the history of Black women in a Juneteenth article was initially labeled as "racist" and "callous," which is not an attack on the content of the edit, but on the motive behind the edit, which is clearly a personal attack. I was also told by an editor that I, personally, was trying to "Right a Great Wrong." Which is clearly a comment on my personal motives and not on my edit. My good faith efforts for other pairs of eyes on the edit was labeled as forum hopping to "get the answer I wanted," which is also a clear attack on my motives. When I set a boundary against that personal attack, I was block for 31 hours for being "disruptive."

More troubling, when I pointed out these personal attacks, the response was DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender). I was told that they were not personal attacks and that I was the abusive person and being "uncivil" for setting boundaries for myself about these personal comments. The editor who blocked me also misrepresented me repeatedly by claiming that I pushed back against being informed about Wikipedia policies (framing me as uncooperative) which is not what I specifically, in writing, set a boundary about with that editor.

The issue of whether or not including the unique history of Black women in Black history adds bias (as the editors here claim) or removes bias (creating neutrality, as I claim) is an evolving debate in our culture's current zeitgeist. Yet, here, my view is being repeatedly characterized as having a "moral" or "political" agenda, which are yet more comments on my motive and not my argument. On the contrary, my goal has always been to make the article neutral, improving Wikipedia's integrity. Other editors characterized that neutrality as "too female-centric" and "too much feminism."

As is, the Juneteenth article explicitly states the legal status of Black men (using the term "Freedmen" three times) as though it were the legal status of all Black people at the time, which it was not. Black women were under the common law status of "coverture," which reputable sources term as "more akin to slavery than to citizenship." (the quote is 28 minutes, 21 seconds into the cited video, which I recommend watching to learn more about "coverture").

I honestly did not realize that Wikipedia would hear the term "malewashing" as aggressive--that surprised me. It's like a white person hearing the word "whitewashing" as aggressive--a word that is regularly used in reputable sources as a colloquialism for when history has an inherent bias of assuming that white history is the history of all people. Once I was told that "malewashing" is heard as "aggressive" in this community, I ceased using the term. AmorLucis (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

can you please provide a link to when your edits were referred to as "racist" and "callous,"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Only because I went looking for what might have been personal attacks against AmorLucis, I believe this is based on this linked section on Talk:Juneteenth here [208], which, at least to me, all seem to be assertions related to the contributions and not the contributor. --Masem (t) 14:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hard to see from that who they might be accusing, so I will be inform all involved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

And note that both [[209]] and [[210]] are an of odd thing to do as neither user was named in the ANI, nor their edits mentioned. You might need to read wp:canvassingSlatersteven (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources

What is this?Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Case in point...the responses of Slatersteven illustrate the type of DARVO communication that has been repeatedly directed at me. Specifically, they are framing my tagging two editors as "odd" and instructed me to read about "canvassing" when both editors I tagged had previously expressed an interest in this topic and the debate around this edit which falls under "appropriate notification" according to Wiki standards. They also posted "What is this?" after I moved my cited source to be placed within the content of this incident report for clarity, rather than at the end of the entire page.

I am choosing not to engage further with this type of communication, which I believe demonstrates bad faith. Let the chips fall where they may based on what I've already said. I'm letting it go. AmorLucis (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, accusing someone of canvassing because they notified people who were previously involved in the situation is about on par with accusing me of bigotry over making the world's least offensive joke, with respect to basic competence.

By the way, it took me less than 2 minutes to find this comparison of AmorLucis' arguments to arguments made by racists and and this accusation of being "callous". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Only if they invited all users, did they?Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hence why I asked them to read it, to give them a chance to rectify it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering that most of the editors involved at NPOVN were already commenting in this thread, I'm still not seeing a problem, or even a reasonable facsimile of one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Has the person whoes comments you linked too (and therefore directly metioned by you, and referred to by them, which means they should have told the user, as they made them party to this ANI)? This is the kind of thing a mentor should be telling them.Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Well then, maybe I should follow your example, and instead of trying to help new editors, I should just bitch and whine because they're not already familiar with our norms. And, apparently, I should make a point to not understand the difference between an editor whom they've pointedly stopped engaging with weeks ago and an editor who's been working with them as recently as yesterday. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What? please, just stop now. I have asked them to read policy, more than once. This will be my last reply to you here I have no idea what your issue is and frankly do not care. If you want to help this user fine, but do not try to make it seem like they are the victim of my bad faith (this is not about me, if it is ask for a boomerang, but stop with the deflection).Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop what? Pointing out that your own behavior has been substantially subpar throughout this? Sorry, that's a feature of ANI. If you don't like it, maybe you should stay away from this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the war room!" But seriously, I would humbly suggest disengagement as I see nothing productive coming from this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd really like to a few editors to actually come help Amor compose some material worth inclusion. I understand that they're difficult to work with, but frankly, Slater is even more difficult to work with, and Amor at least hasn't been here so long that there's no hope of them changing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have now informed the user accused of PA's in this ANI as the accusers seemed unwilling to.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

you might need to read wp:canvassing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

At the top of this page "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.", it is required to inform users (which you should have done, when you quoted them) who are mentioned at ANI they have been mentioned, it's a rule. So stop acting like a 4 year old and grow up.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Funny, I see your signature after the OP post, not mine. In fact, I don't see where I've accused anyone of anything sanctionable, though I've quite clearly hinted that your behavior is seriously lacking.

You asked for diffs, I provided diffs. That's not an accusation. That's not starting a discussion about someone. No matter how much of a tantrum you want to throw over it, providing diffs in response to a request for them is called "being helpful" not "making accusations."

You know what does constitute making accusations? Demanding evidence of something that you're easily capable of finding yourself when you've got good reasons to suspect the person you're demanding it from doesn't even know how to find it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(I received a notice) I withdrew several weeks ago, my last comment similar to my first comment, 'we need the direct sources', otherwise there are all kinds of problems that can arise, particularly with respect to content policies, but as maybe others later concluded we need the sources, or there was a behavioral dimension. To the extent that AmorLucis is "difficult to work with", it seemed to lie in part in what appears to be in contributing with what they accuse others of -- besides which, it seems asking the impossible, to find a middle path, with the 'sources not needed' position they argued, at the time. At any rate, as perhaps comes as no surprise, I agree with Masem, here and at NPOVN, that my comments of several weeks ago were directed to contributions, not PAs; the only thing I could add to Masem's analysis is my comments were intended to be directed at the contributions, not the person. I remain open to seeing the directly connecting sources that no one has seemed to be able to find (at that time, it was connecting coverture to Juneteenth).

Unconnected to Juneteenth, Angela Davis wrote about the struggle of several black women after the war -- and even the struggle of the man she calls the greatest male, women's rights advocate of the nineteenth century: their focus, she says was on race oppression; the focus of their struggle was not on discussing, celebrating, nor disputing, Juneteenth, nor June 19th (otherwise she would have said that), it was in a life and death struggle against racism, inside and outside the women's movement.[211] Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Googling malewashing gets me:
  • [212] Oatey, 37357 Moda Fire-Rated 2-Valve Copper Male Washing Machine
  • [213] Men wash their hands much less often than women
  • [214] Front view of young male washing clothes
  • [215] Spanish students call for end to male washing machine ban

Which one are we talking about? (That last item certainly bears further investigation: Students at a university residence in Madrid are demanding an end to a long-standing ban on male students using the residence's washing machines. Despite repeated calls for more than three years for a change in the rules, the code of conduct at the Duque de Ahumada de la Guardia Civil residence continues to specify that "use of the washing machines by male residents will result in expulsion, ranging from 15 days to three months, from the residence". Male students at the dorm, which caters for the children and grandchildren of Guardia Civil officers, are instead instructed to quietly pass their clothes to female friends to be washed.") EEng 15:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The third of those items may also. Narky Blert (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My wife is the only woman in our home, and she's instituted a similar rule after I accidentally shrank one of her shirts and my 12yo son decided that about a half-gallon of liquid laundry detergent would be the correct amount to wash his karategi last year. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You can't get out of it that easily at my house. The hubs does 99% of the laundry. Only the stuff I both value highly and can't easily/cheaply replace gets me into the laundry room. —valereee (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My wife took that stance, right up until I shrunk her shirt. I swear, it was an accident. Truthfully, I still do laundry, I just do it when she's not around. Life's easier that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Potter, Lifemanship theorist, recommended that on your first day as a houseguest, you should offer to help with the washing-up, and break something valuable but not irreplaceable. Your hosts will thereafter decline all your offers of assistance, and you can relax. Narky Blert (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Copy-paste votes at hundreds of AfDs

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

---

There are at least two accounts that appear to be copying and pasting votes across hundreds of AfDs, with evidence that they don't read the AfD before voting.

Rondolinda copies and pastes these votes:

• "Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines." copied and pasted 41 times
• "Doesn't meet general notability guidelines" copied and pasted 85 times
• "I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines" copied and pasted 12 times

There are times Rondolinda votes on AfD, then votes again on that AfD (24 minutes later), then realize they've voted twice and removes the second vote. Rondolinda also votes on AfDs after they have been closed. Here, Rondolinda copied and pasted the same vote at 3 different AfDs within 2 minutes[216][217][218]. Cyphoidbomb wrote that Rondolinda had "limited English reading comprehension skill". I don't believe that Rondolinda was able to go through these articles this fast. GreenC also noted the copy and paste nature of their votes. Rondolinda was previously blocked for copying and pasting content into articles, but unblocked by Drmies (courtesy ping).

TheDreamBoat copies and pastes these votes:

• "Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG." copied and pasted 49 times
• "Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG." copied and pasted 71 times
• "No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines." copied and pasted 30 times

Several times TheDreamBoat votes on an AfD, then votes again on that AfD (32 minutes later), then realizes they had voted before and removes the second vote. There are several times when TheDreamBoat will vote on AfDs that have been closed already. There are at least two times[219][220] when TheDreamBoat voted "Non notable player" on AfDs that were actually about buildings/places. TheDreamBoat's copying and pasting into articles was previously noted (though the copied material wasn't copyrighted).

Does anyone else think this behavior is of concern? VR _talk 14:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Though, I note thy are also copy/pasting "Keep" votes as well [221] [222]. I'm just going out, but I would suggest a temporary partial block from Wikipedia space for both accounts while we work out what's going on? Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• (ec) Certainly. Topic bans would be in order, though they would probably pop up elsewhere. Do either actually do anything else? Or what BK says. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Call me crazy but I have a theory of sorts. Both have a shared interest in People's Mujahedin of Iran, an article that has attracted much sock puppetry and is currently at arbitration. Prior to this AfD copy-pasting, TheDreamBoat was accused of being dormant but showing up to RfCs to vote, then going dormant again. I wonder if this is an attempt to prove the contrary, and I wonder if this is being carried out by a click farm. Sorry if this is an outrageous theory.VR _talk 15:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You may be crazy, but that doesn't mean you're not right. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Not an outrageous theory. I reached the same conclusion a while ago, and I think that is exactly the case. Copy-pasta AfD votes, obviously both using their own templates, seems to be cover up for their RfC vote stacking and similar activity at MEK-related pages. MarioGom (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK CheckUser seems to have been unsuccessful in the past, as this might be tightly coordinated meatpuppetry and not strict socking. See editor interaction, consolidated contribs. MarioGom (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite, I indef p-blocked them from the project space. Though they haven't edited sine July 13, I think we may as well. El_C 15:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• El_C The other account has been editing today. I've done the same for them. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oops, reading comprehension failure. Thanks. El_C 17:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Obvious sock puppets of one another (and probably an older master, maybe Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12/Archive where one was reported). They both previously overlapped on a few Iran related articles. The both started this AfD activity in February 2021, and have since both been active almost exclusively in AfDs each month through July 2021[223][224]. Add to this the same voting patterns, and it's a ringer. Most of their votes are probably done just to increase edit count, they seem to vote on cases of clear consensus. Their overlapping votes (interaction tool) seem benign, while the Iran related stuff is shared POV.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  For those not familiar with it, Atlantic12 SPI involved 2 separate blocked groups, and 1 independently blocked account. I think there were probably 3 sockmasters involved, even if they had a shared agenda. MarioGom (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Connecting to the muddy and stale (since 2018) Atlantic12 SPI will be complicated and require case specific expertise. However blocking these two as socks of one another is easy. They violated the multiple account policy multiple times by voting in the same AfDs, and it is obvious by their editing pattern that they are the same person or at the very least following the same particular template of voting instructions for whatever reason, which is an obvious shared source. A CU might uncover more of these, but whatever CU finds on these two they are strongly linked behaviorally.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Has anyone tried talking to them about this before floating ABF theories? Levivich 16:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  WP:DUCK (the pair to each other) and Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact apply. How would they come up with this AfD voting scheme independently, both together, in February 2021?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheDreamBoat, as this is the right venue to discuss socking/meatpuppetry evidence. MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Esotrix: "AFD voting scheme"? That's the ABF I'm talking about. AGF isn't a suicide pact, but it is a starting point. Did we start with AGF or did we go right to AFD voting scheme and SPI? They might know each other IRL and not realize that what they're doing is problematic. How would they know if no one ever told them? (BTW, both those links are essays and AGF is policy, meaning AGF has broad community consensus and the other two don't.) Levivich 17:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich I have tried talking to Rondolinda twice. It was after this talk when they stopped their copy and paste behavior at Bangladeshi schools and moved on to AfDs. The second time I asked them about Sea Ane. Sea Ane had started generic mass voting at RFCs, also in February 2021. Like Rondolinda, Sea Ane had also been indef blocked for copyright violations. Both Rondolinda and Sea Ane were created in 2018, but had remained relatively dormant until 2020 and 2021, respectively. Rondolinda responded I was ABF.VR _talk 17:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't understand what User:Sea Ane has to do with User:Rondolinda and User:TheDreamBoat and their AFD !votes. I don't see where you've addressed the topic of this thread--AFD votes--with Rondolina or TheDreamBoat directly before posting this. (Although I see you have had concerns about Rondolina going back over a year based on their talk page, but not about this.) Also, as you know because you're a party, there is an open Iranian arbcom politics case right now. If you think this is MEK disruption, I think you should raise it there; Arbcom will have a much fuller picture than ANI will at this point. Have you considered that all that's necessary to get them to stop making copy-and-paste AFD votes is to ask? (Do you know these aren't the first two users doing this, and in the past, we've simply asked users to stop, and they've stopped, without sanctions? In some cases, we've had to sanction, but not always. Cookie-cutter AFD votes, and "spam voting," isn't a new or unique problem.) Levivich 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  (ec)They vote in the same manner. Same template. A very problematic template which involves rapid fire copy-pasted voting (3 in one minute: [225][226][227]). In theory it could be two people coordinating the same problematic behavior as well as the same votes in Iranian politics. Sure, in theory this is possible, but Occam's razor wouldn't go that way and it would still be a coordination issue given the shared discussions.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  You're just arguing that you're probably right. That's not what I'm arguing. Coordination, in and of itself, is not against any rules. We coordinate all the time, it's called collaboration. What's against the rules is improper coordination (WP:MEATPUPPET), but even if this is improper coordination, it doesn't mean we don't need to talk to them! I literally just saw two users who "coordinated" (via Discord) get blocked (improperly, and then quickly unblocked by another admin) because the blocking admin didn't talk to the editors before blocking. Someone should have talked to the editors before blocking (like the blocking admin), or reporting to ANI, or SPI. The solution might be as simple as educating them about our policies. Levivich 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Coordinating for vote-stacking at RFCs and tag-team in disputes to create an illusion of support is improper, and that's the basis of the SPI report. I consider AFD copy-pasta crucial evidence of sock/meatpuppetry, but not the most important basis for WP:ILLEGIT. That being said, I will not add any further comments about socking here. If I have further evidence to share, I'll post it at the SPI case. MarioGom (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Of course it's improper. The first step to addressing such improper behavior is to raise it with the editors, like on their talk page, with a link to WP:MEATPUPPET, etc. Levivich 17:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since both accounts are now blocked from Wikipedia space, they cannot comment here. I have dropped them both a note to comment on their talk pages to comment there if they need to, and have watchlisted both pages. As I am in the UK, it may be worth admins from other timezones doing the same. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Imperialreal

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

---

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

Upon being reverted at the Timurid Empire article, said user, as he restored his own edit, wrote: "You Munafiq Burn in Jahannam."[228]

1. Munafiq = "Munafiq is a person who in public and in community shows that he is a Muslim but rejects Islam or propagate against it either in his heart or among enemies of Islam. The hypocrisy itself is called nifāq (نفاق).[2]"
2. Jahanam = "hell"

So basically, "you hypocrite fake Muslim burn in hell", which goes without saying is a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE."

He also said this in a earlier edit summary;

"No Kafirs allowed in personal Islamic Rules."

Kafir = Infidel. I guess I don't need to say more than that.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.VR _talk 15:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Ashlebbay

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

---

User:Ashlebbay had vandalized my userpage and had added the words "mairan" and "confirmed thayoli" [229]. The word "mairan" apparently means "pubic hair" in Malayalam [230] [231], and "thayoli" is a curseword which means "motherfucker" [232] [233]. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Indeed, it's a bit much. As noted on their talk page, being inexperienced isn't some kind of a magic exemption from misconduct that'd be prohibited pretty much anywhere else. Assurances will need to be provided that such misconduct won't be repeated again. El_C 16:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Fodbold-fan

Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A very good user (at times), but with a sizeable block log and a history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, which based on this discussion from June is seemingly due to laziness/forgetfulness. And yet, he persists. I therefore propose a topic ban, broadly construed, from any edits related to BLPs. GiantSnowman 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Topic ban: Regretfully, likely necessary. A quick review turned up another such edit [234] which I reverted for lack of sourcing. I attempted to verify the claims in the diff, but despite looking at the websites of the respective clubs I could not find any information which confirmed what Fodbold-fan was saying. There are a lot...and I do mean a lot...of editors who routinely change information on football and football-bio articles without any care in the world for accuracy. Sadly, Fodbold-fan seems to be one of them. User talk response such as [235] and [236] do not inspire confidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support BLP topic ban This editor's dismissive attitude toward Verifiability and BLP policy is simply not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support for an indefinite duration. The blocks were of an escalating duration a couple of years ago, and now we are back with the same issue. In the absence of demonstrating consistent compliance with core policies when editing Wikipedia articles, this topic ban is unfortunately necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Okay please last chance, from now on I will add source to every little edit I do. I promise. You will see. Please Fodbold-fan (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How many last chances have you had? GiantSnowman 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I promise this time will be the last. You will see. Fodbold-fan (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The two edits given as justification for the topic ban were unsourced but correct. The edit that Hammersoft couldn't verify was easily verified from e.g. here or here. We should thank them for their edits, not topic ban them. Football project editors mostly do a wonderful job, but have had similar issues in the past with a very heavy-handed approach towards editors who add correct information but don't source it to their liking. While it of course is better if editors add good sources while dding information, it still is better that they improve articles and add correct but unsourced information, than that they don't improve these articles at all. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Fodbold-fan is a very productive editor and has been for a long time. I would find it sad for them to be topic-banned. That said, they need to adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements and their dismissive statements towards sourcing were very disappointing. I'd be willing to give them one "last chance". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If people want to block people for adding unsourced but correct information to BLPs, then perhaps they first need to change the policy? There is no requirement to only add sourced material to BLPs, unsourced additions or changes are welcome if they are uncontroversial (and correct of course). If they are regularly incorrect in what they add, then we should have a discussion about that: but topic banning an editor (and worse, blocking them 3 times already) over what is perfectly acceptable policy-wise is the wrong approach. Instead, GiantSnowman (and others) should stop blocking people for making correct and policy-acceptable edits. Fram (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no excuse to ever add unsourced material to any article, and certainly no such thing as policy-acceptable unsourced edits so long as Verifiability remains a policy. Unsourced edits are worse than vandalism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you are confusing policy-encouraged and policy-acceptable. Unsourced edits are perfectly acceptable. That's why it is verifiability, not verified. Obviously it is much better to add the source directly, instead of waiting for it to be challenged and only then to add one, but that's just best practice, not some absolute requirement which is blockable or which is somewhere policy. And your addition "unsourced edits are worse than vandalism" is just silly. Fram (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Fram and GiantSnowman's "A very good user (at times)". Words of wisdom or consideration: This editor is apparently a subject SPA (certainly not a bad thing), with what seems to be 255 articles created (only a few deleted) and also what seems to be working on 64,000 edits. While I am 100% for sourcing BLP content, if the content was in fact (not seemingly argued against) sourced, then this should count as a warning that getting too close to the last chance line could be dangerous. @Fodbold-fan: You seem to indicate you are through playing with fire. I notice you revert but apparently, add content on some edits ( here). I haven't looked at how it is customarily done but I consider a reversion to be just that. I would think adding content and reference(s) should be noted as such in the edit summary for clarity. In the scheme of Wikipedia creating articles is normally considered a great thing and in that regard, you seem to be doing "great things", however, and especially concerning BLP's, it is dangerous to add content without sourcing when you have been warned. At present, you stand a chance of being topic-banned. Unless you have some alternative area I would think you would want to protect this. I cannot give a good defending argument concerning your block log. I can just add that this "slip up" was the first in over two years and maybe that will be considered. Maybe because there was a source in this instance there could be some saving grace but I hope you do realize the gravity of the situation. Being a prolific editor does not give a pass for disregarding policies and guidelines. Good luck, -- Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose because there is no rule requiring edits to be sourced. I would support such a rule, but it very pointedly doesn't exist. That's why there's a BLP rule requiring it for controversial edits; because other kinds of edits don't have to be sourced. No sanctions without evidence of actually violating policy. Also, the one diff in the OP was not unsourced; almost all of that edit was sourced by Soccerway, which was already in the article; the only part that wasn't was the "the deal was never made official" language. I actually agree with requiring edits to be sourced but the remedy is reversion not sanctions. If we want to sanction editors for persistently adding unsourced material we first need to add the requirement to policy. Levivich 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Levivich and Fram: WP:BLP requires All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. It does not matter if the edits are "controversial". If the material Fodbold-fan is adding is regularly being challenged then it is unacceptable for them to simply supply sources once it is challenged. They need to be adding the sources when they are adding the material since clearly whatever they are adding is "likely to be challenged". BLP further requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" but that doesn't seem to be the issue here since the problem is Fodbold-fan violating BLP by failing to add sources for material likely to be challenged rather than contentious material. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think "likely to be challenged" means "we have a project where a few of the most active editors will challenge any BLP material if unsourced", but "if the unsourced material you add is unlikely, or negative, or otherwise likely to be challenged for any reason apart from simply being unsourced, then you should source it. Otherwise it is circular reasoning / self-fulfilling prophecy. For me, the issue is not (or less) with someone adding correct but unsourced material (and the editors wanting the topic ban have not indicated that this is about incorrect material at all), but with editors routinely challenging this (and blocking editors!) to uphold their standards which are higher than what enwiki policy requires. Policy should not be misused in this way, the lines you quote are not intended to be a catch-all which can be used to wikilawyer. Otherwise we could better replace them with "all BLP material must be sourced and will be removed if not, and editors failing to do this will be blocked". Fram (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • These edits are not likely to be challenged and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. No one has challenged the accuracy of the two edits diffed here. I am hard pressed to think of an edit that is less likely to be contentious or challenged than what team a pro athlete or coach plays for. This is very easy to verify, "vanilla" stuff. It'd be a whole different story if these were controversial or inaccurate edits. ("Controversial" is shorthand for "contentious or challenged or likely to be challenged.") Levivich 14:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram and Levivich. Unsourced material is only bad if 1) it is unsourceable and not merely for being unsourced. Which is to say, if it can be easily shown that a source exists and could be added, that is not a violation of BLP or any other policy. And 2) it is contentious or likely to be challenged. The lack of a source itself is not sufficient grounds for challenging. It must also, in some other way, have a problem, such as being unlikely to be true, harmful or negative in someway, etc. etc. Wikipedia policies are not couched in mandatory "if this, then that" statements, they require nuance and prudence when applying them, and to ban and/or block the OP for this seems heavy handed. I would encourage them to source their edits better (as they should have learned, it makes some people get unnecessarily confrontational when they don't), but unless such information is legitimately contentious, we shouldn't sanction them for not doing so. --Jayron32 15:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Paula Abdul, WP:BLP violations

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

---

Please protect the article, rev/delete the malicious crap and block the responsible accounts. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:BD4A:4B03:FD4C:CE7 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Zzuuzz. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User repeatedly adding copyright content

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

---

User Bittoomittal is repeatedly adding copyright content to Wikipedia, copying content straight from news articles and pasting it onto their created Wikipedia article Zorawar Fort. I fixed the article by removing/rewriting content and adding references before marking it as reviewed but the creator persists with adding more and more content and has ignored all administrator messages on their talk page. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@WaddlesJP13: Please remember to notify reported users. I have done that for you. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 02:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nightwolf1223: My bad, I definitely intended to do so but got caught up in a couple emails then completely forgot, so thank you for notifying them for me. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 02:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• The editor in question has a history of drive-by editing: a day in 2014, two days in 2020, and a day this year. It may be that we have seen all that we will see from this editor this year. Worth also pointing out that their entire editing history includes 0 edits to talk pages, so there's a good change they simply don't understand that collaborative part of the process. The fact that they've created articles but not the talk pages for them reinforces that for me. Reaching out on a talk page or using edit summaries to encourage them to discuss edits might help. That said, the obvious copyvio is problematic. I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTHERE; more WP:NOTHEREVERYOFTEN or WP:NOTHEREENOUGHTOKNOWPOLICY. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Also, has never used a talk page of any kind. El_C 02:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Consistent creation of unsourced articles by Russel641

Russel641 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Russel641 seems to be a user with very good intentions, however they have a problem with continued addition of unsourced articles about television programming which do not seem to meet the inclusion criteria. Every one of his articles has either moved to draft space, deleted or redirected to a list article. He has several warnings and requests to stop creating unsourced articles but has not engaged in any sort of discussion about the concerns. I'm not sure if it is possible if they don't engage in some sort of corrective action that they have their page creation permission removed until they can demonstrate proper citations and inclusion criteria through the WP:AFC process. There edits to existing articles seem to be helpful and I would hate to see them blocked outright as I believe they could be a valuable contributor to the project. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be communication, or rather, a lack thereof. He has 427 edits, yet has only made 4 edits to any sort of talk page, all of which were page moves.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that is the reason I thought I had to bring it here for some sort of administrative enforcement to either force them to engage in some sort of communication or go through the AFC process until they understand the requirements for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot of mobile edits; a lot of mobile users don't even realize that talk pages exist, ime. I don't think it's possible to specifically restrict article creation rights once a user is autoconfirmed. Maybe a block from mainspace would get their attention? -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent POV-pushing by Wikiman2021language

• Wikiman2021language (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Said user is on a campaign aimed at "Iranifying/Persianizing" Pakistan-related articles, while simultaneously "Pakistanifying" other articles. Although warned on numerous occassions, he/she is not willing to stop:

1. Added Nowruz to the List of Sindhi festivals article. No source, edit summary or explanation.[237]
2. Tried to turn Urdu, an Indo-Aryan language, into a language belonging to the Iranian languages tree. No edit summary/explanation.[238]
3. Tried to inflate population figures for Tajiks in Pakistan without source, explanation, or edit summary.[239]
4. Added "Dari Persian" to the Gurjar article. No edit summary/explanation.[240]
5. Tried to turn Urdu, an Indo-Aryan language, into a language belonging to the ancient Iranian Avestan language. No edit summary/explanation and no RS source.[241]
6. Changed "Indian Subcontinent" into "South Asia" accompanied by Wikitravel. No edit summary/explanation.[242]
7. Added "Pakistan" to the infobox of the Persian language article accompanied by a non-RS Lonely Planet link. No edit summary/explanation.[243]
8. Added heaps of unsourced content to the Persianization article. No edit summary, source or explanation.[244]
9. Warned on numerous occassions.[245]-[246]

Looking at the compelling evidence, I think its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

LouisAragon, these edits may well constitute NOTHERE (or a variation therein), but I wouldn't call two warnings numerous. El_C 14:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Generally, I would agree. However, said user, who has made numerous violations of WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:BRD and WP:OR, has not resorted to the talk page even once, nor replied to the warnings even once. Even though he/she surely gets notified when his/her edits get reverted. Hence, in such occassions, I do find two specific warnings on his/her talk page to be "numerous" and frankly, quite generous even. If said user had made even "one" mere gesture of approach, I would have also found two warnings to be insufficient. His/her editorial conduct however, as we speak, is not a net worth gain to the project, and frankly its time consuming for editors who have to revert these disruptive edits over and over. However, rather than an indef, a final warning by any admin would do the trick as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range still at it

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1072#Possible range block? for my previous report here.

IP range is still at it, once again adding unsourced speculation about a 2022 KCA ceremony, despite nothing being announced yet. Would a block be possible here at all? At this point, it seems like the /32 range would be the one to block. Thanks again in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

They used an edit summary in regards to this (for once!): "Back off! Wait for the next year's awards, you understand?"- seems like they don't understand what original research is and don't understand WP:CRYSTALBALL either.

For those who don't follow Nickelodeon/KCAs closely, there has been no announcement whatsoever regarding a 2022 ceremony. Some of the first results on Google include this and this, which are simply fan hopes/wishes. Magitroopa (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked each of the following for a month (the /43 had previously been blocked for 2 weeks). 2001:8003:b10b:3700::/64 + 2600:1003:b440::/43 + 2601:14f:c000:7b0::/64. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Found sock, so take action

Hi admin and @Nick: i have found a sock editor who is editing an article which was created by him/her. And the username is Run n Fly. He/she is editing from an ip address after his/her block. And the ip account link is user:2402:3A80:1123:234D:7940:BDB1:A88:59B8. This ip has commented on the afd discussion of Rajanya Mitra. And Rajanya Mitra is his/her first edit from this ip and also the editing pattern is same with Run n Fly. So Do check and take action against it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bapinghosh (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bapinghosh: the user of this IP has been identified as a sock based on their editing pattern here. However, according to the patrolling admin, the IP range they are on is too wide to be blockable. If the IP is used again for similar edits, you can revert them for block evasion. Apart from that, there is nothing left to be done. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You could try a page protection request if they are hitting only one or two targets. 2600:1011:B10A:BF57:E464:5DF7:31A9:8A79 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: thank you for the suggestion Bapinghosh

User:Mareklug passed away

Mareklug died on January 21, 2020. His account was already blocked indefinitely on plwiki. Tempest (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Trimmed per OSPOL Primefac (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tempest: Sorry to hear that. The instructions you need are at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. Narky Blert (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Violation of WP:A/I/PIA in the creation and development of Wehda Street massacre

First, my apologies for not originally bringing this here; I was regrettably unaware of this forum. Fortunately, one of the editors at AFD was kind enough to point me in the right direction. In addition, apologies if I have made any mistakes with the creation of this notice.

The page Wehda Street massacre was created[247] on the ninth of July by user User:Osps7. At the time, Osps7 had approximately 450 edits, and thus was not extended-confirmed, meaning the creation and subsequent edits were in violation of WP:A/I/PIA. Osps7 was aware of the restrictions imposed by WP:A/I/PIA, having been made aware of them[248] by User:Shrike on the 17th of October, 2020, after having made edits[249] to Palestine Emergency Law in violation of WP:A/I/PIA

Subsequently, users User:Rsawikza and User:Belal2795, neither of which meet the 30/500 restriction, made significant contributions to the page. There is no evidence that Rsawikza was aware of the restrictions at the time of any of their edits, but Belal2795 was at least for the edits made on the 28th of July[250], as they occurred after having been notified[251] by User:Selfstudier of the restrictions.

The edits of the users, beyond being in violation of WP:A/I/PIA, introduced significant WP:NPOV issues to the page. In the case of Rsawikza, there is reason to believe that some of these issues were due to their disagreement over what constitutes neutral, as evidenced in the description for an edit made on the 18th of July[252], which stated "as well as tried to introduce more "neutrality" by introducing more of Israel's public messaging". This was in response to an uninvolved editor placing a "neutrality disputed" template on the page.

The issues themselves are too numerous to list here, but they most prominently include consistently describing the event as a massacre, despite the word not being used outside of quotations by any reporting that I have reviewed, while other examples of biased word use including describing the 11-day conflict as an "11-day attack on Gaza". Other issues include presenting statements by involved parties such as Hamas as fact, while presenting statements from involved parties such as the IDF prefaced with words such as "claim", in violation of MOS:CLAIM, and the omission of relevant information such as statements from the Israeli military that hypothesize that the considerable damage inflicted beyond the street was due to secondary explosions, nor when it discusses the lack of warning provided does it mention the statements, again from the Israeli military, that Israel believed based on previous strikes of a similar nature that the damage would be localized and not pose a threat to civilians.

Due to the extensiveness of these issues, it is my belief that in regards to the page it would be best to exercise the option provided by WP:A/I/PIA to delete the page and allow it to be started again, this time in accordance with WP:NPOV - hence why I originally brought it to AFD before being informed that AFD was not the appropriate forum to consider deletions based on rulings.

BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, I don't understand what you're asking. The AfD is on right now. What does based on rulings mean? (Rulings? What rulings?) If you think the page's title should be changed, the WP:RM procedure is for that. If you wish to change the page's content to conform with neutrality, the way to do that is through normal editing. If you're asking for sanctions to be imposed on Osps7 retroactively, we don't do that. Belal2795 was issued the DS alert yesterday and have not edited the topic area since. Rsawikza has yet to be given such an alert, so there can be no arbitration enforcement applied to them until this happens. El_C 05:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, please do not alter your comment after it has been responded to (by me just now, above) without making a note of it (like with a diff showing the change). I want my comment to follow the same one I responded to, not one which was altered afterwards. El_C 05:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:El_C. First, apologies for the edit. When I started the edit, you had not yet responded and I did not realize a response had been made until after the submission; you will notice our submissions are just two minutes apart.

Second, another apology, for my miscommunications. "Based on rulings" is almost certainly the wrong way to word it, but I am referring to deletions based on rulings (arbitations?) outside the scope of notability, specifically in regards to reasons such as those created under arbitration as they were for WP:A/I/PIA.

In regards to sanctions, I would be asking for the standard ones for knowing breaches of WP:A/I/PIA - Belal2795 was informed approximately eight hours before their most recent edit on the 28th of July.[253], while Osps7 was informed several months before. I also don't believe such an action against Osps7 would be retroactive , as their actions post-date the implementation of restrictions. However, I don't know what retroactive means in this context as opposed to the general context, so I am very likely mistaken on this.

I would also raise the question of whether Rsawikza is able to edit topics related to this area neutrally, based on the NPOV issues with their submissions - issues shared by the other contributors mentioned - but enhanced by the quoted description of their edit.

Finally, apologies for any awkwardness in regards to this request, and please be patient with me; I am relatively new to Wikipedia myself, and am only here after being directed by an editor at the AFD that I was in the wrong forum. Are there guides in regards to submissions on these pages that I can read? I searched for them before posting, but unfortunately could not find any. BilledMammal (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, sanctioning Osps7 right now for what they did before would be retroactive by definition. Likewise, notwithstanding Belal2795's violation, considering the timeline, sanctioning them at this point would be excessive. But if they do it again, then yes. As for Rsawikza, you're sort of placing the cart before the horse there. Until they reach the required WP:500-30 tenure, their neutrality or lack thereof in this area isn't really pertinent yet. Finally, I don't think circumventing the ongoing deletion process by deleting the page via arbitration enforcement fiat would be an appropriate action to undertake. Hope that makes sense. El_C 06:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:El_C for the explanation; almost all of that makes sense to me. The one exception is Osps7; by that definition it would seem to me that all sanctions would be retrospective, as they all sanction someone for past actions and behavior? Or are you referring to the fact that while Osps7 was not in compliance with the 500/30 when they made the page and subsequent edits earlier this month they are now? BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, what I'm getting at is that in the case of Osps7, those violations would now be deemed Stale. El_C 11:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello dear BilledMammal. I really don't understand you! I've been editing Wikipedia for 7 years! I have high powers in the Arabic Wikipedia, and my presence in the English Wikipedia is an attempt to expand knowledge, and I know the meaning of impartiality. I am very interested in neutrality. But you obviously focus a lot on this topic for some inexplicable reason to me. Why didn't you make edits to the article? Why didn't you try to make it neutral? Edit the article and make it neutral! I am very familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and when I wrote the term "massacre" it was based on a report from Amnesty International, and it came also based on international news reports. I hope you don't exaggerate things, and before creating discussions on this topic, edit the article, and edit it to be more neutral. Osps7 (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Osps7. First, I hope you don't mind, but I adjusted your indentation as it appears your reply was aimed at the general topic than the discussion with El_C. If I was wrong, please don't hesitate to move it back. In regards to editing the article, I did originally start down that path, but after spending a decent chunk of time on it and not getting very far, I came to believe we would be better off starting with a clean slate, hence the AFD. Should the AFD fail, I will try again when I can commit more time. In regards to the Amnesty International report, there is no AI in the references provided, and a search for an Amnesty International publication discussing Al-Wehda Street reveals just this one, which does not use the word "massacre" in quotations or otherwise. Can you provide the report you are talking about? BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Um, I think everyone involved, including the newcomers, now know all about Arbpia, 30/500 and so on, so we could usefully move on at this point. Name issue may be dealt with via RM in the usual way no need to clutter this page with that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Gold Cup vandal

@Bbb23: This 190.163.211.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalizing articles about Gold Cup after Canada was defeated. Flix11 (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Flix11: Do not ping me again to report vandalism. It is WP:POINTy and yet another example of your abuse of process. You are pushing the envelope on a number of fronts, and I am very close to blocking you for it. BTW, your ping did not work because you did not do it properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've restored this thread after Flix11 improperly removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Wallywally23

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

---

This user (its name was mentioned on the title of the section) making "talk-in" edits on the page YK Osiris; then proceeds to make personal attacks against me on its talk page.----Rdp060707|talk 09:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

According to User:PrincessPersnickety (on my talk page), this user also has a WP:NOTHERE behavior.----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

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

El Greekos

Users warnings are enough to warrant a block. Last edit "Stop vandalizing the page just because of your ethnic biased and use a real account."[254] 85.108.134.234 (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 11:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Talk to aoi

User:Talk to aoi was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on Maggie Mac Neil, since the block ended they have gone straight back to the article in question and removed sourced info calling it "hate". Given their current talk page it is pretty clear the editor is WP:NOTHERE and only here to push chinese nationalism. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Note the editor has now decided to call me a hater because I simply reverted their removal of sourced info. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

P-blocked from Maggie Mac Neil. Talk to aoi, you have a reasonable point here, but the answer isn't to edit war. You retain access to the talk page. I suggest you go there and make your arguments about why this doesn't actually have anything to do with her personal life and therefore doesn't belong in a BLP but instead at One-child policy. —valereee (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I will point out that I gave this user a discretionary sanction notice for BLP articles when the first edit warring block occurred. This may have gone without notice by reviewing admins as the user removed it from their talk page pretty quickly. I think the current partial block will stand just fine without using the DS though. If this behavior carries on in other BLP articles then it may become relevant. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't see that, although I probably would have still done the same thing. The account's only like three weeks old, and I'm not sure I see that they've edited other blps. Although now I look closer I also see a blp vio actually on their user talk. Hm. —valereee (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After looking at their contribution history (which I should have done before), it appears the only area this editor is causing problems is blp (so far limited to Maggie Mac Neil, but with a cmt on their talk page which may breach blp), so if the behaviour continues on other blps a topic ban would be preferable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Mass revert by User:Ekuftle

Not sure why User:Ekuftle reverted all of my edits. I double-checked before doing any updates to make sure they were as per policy. Please check for example this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cleartrip&action=history which Ekuftle reverted. Here I just removed a duplicate ref which was with the original ref not sure how this is vandalism. This was just an improvement to the article. Acveo (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Acveo, if you don't inform Ekuftle about this complaint, as is required, how would they know about it so as to be able to respond? Anyway, I've done this for you. El_C 14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Acveo is a newly-created WP:SPA that has only been making puffery edits disguised as "improvements" on companies exclusively within the hospitality and tourism industry. Agoda is one such obvious example, this isn't the first time that this has happened as you can see in the revision history. Does WP:COI get any more obvious? Do I also have to talk about the fact how suspicious it is that an account that's barely more than 24 hours old has the means to use ANI almost immediately after? Ekuftle (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I also have to point out about this user named Okadiputera, another SPA only created earlier this month, making identical edits of companies within the hospitality and tourism industry. Ekuftle (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Ekuftle, Your own account seems pretty new and you are accusing other users for WP:SPA. I have to agree with Acveo here your revert edits like these are actually vandalism in itself. Sanketio31 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sanketio31: Please re-read WP:NOTVAND. Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and misusing the term can result in unpleasant consequences. Tiderolls 17:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ekuftle and Acveo, on a related note here: you both need to start consistently using edit summaries that clearly explain your reasoning for your edit. The edit summary is often at least as important as the edit. Please go to Preferences>Editing>Editor and check the box for a reminder. "Improvements" is not sufficient. Many experienced editors often leave edit summaries that are longer than the actual edit. If you were both leaving detailed edit summaries to explain your reasoning, we probably wouldn't be here. —valereee (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Sandman1238 blanking sourced content, no discussion

Sandman1238 has a habit of blanking sourced content without discussion. Has never edited a talk page, including their own, despite multiple warnings about this. I'm thinking a p-block from article space to see if we can get them talking. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible WP:CIR user

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

I've seen some problematic things from this user- mainly (also starting off with) unsourced content and incorrect/bad formatting of spaces (this, this, this, and many other edits of theirs).

As shown on their talk page, they've had quite an amount of warnings in just the past month. One of these warnings was also for copyright/plagiarism issues- I will note that while it is not present, they seem to have done so yet again at Blue's Big Baking Show, which is what prompted me to finally come to ANI for this (see this vs. this). The user has also recently been creating non-notable (and unsourced) articles, including the previously mentioned Blue's Clues & You! episode, Rena Rouge, Hawk Moth, Gabriel Agreste, Otis Césaire, Wayhem, and Ella & Etta Cesaire among others.

Even if this is not a CIR case, they are very much becoming disruptive at this point- either a stern final warning or a block may be necessary now. (Also see the user's filter log.) Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)