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

Overly-long title shortened

Original title: "Repeated Warnings on My Talk Page From Other Editors - For Reasons Which Seem Either Ambiguous or Petty/Innocuous (not fully explained) Please Block ME FROM EDITING or Let Them Know to be Civil and Polite"

I am getting scolded and reprimanded on my talk page, I've got two warnings now. I do not clearly see why, specifically what rules are to be followed (that I'm not following), I'm not being given any opportunity to make amends, or apologize, and I'm feeling like it's harassment. To be clear, these problems are coming from several other editors, making me doubt that it's them, I have to admit, it is probably me, but they won't take the time nor do they have the wherewithal to make it clear why it's wrong, what it is, how to correct it. From my perspective I do not as yet clearly see how I'm out of line. Please review my situation, either BLOCK ME ENTIRELY from Wikipedia - since I'm such a horrible editor and have used up so many other editors' precious time and patience, or please let the other editors know that I'm trying my best and to desist, I'm losing my composure. When I go to the Teahouse, one of the editors complains continually, and tells me my entries are too long, and I suppose they're too hard to read perhaps? I don't know. The editor advised me to stay away from the Teahouse and not spend time there. This editor keeps writing about losing his patience with me. Another editor writes in ambiguous aphorisms that I'm unable to clearly understand, and I'm really not that experienced at this (Wikipedia). I've been trying to clear some things through the talk pages, and the feedback is just getting derailed and hijacked by other editors, who fail to directly respond to my entreaties. Then, they are complaining that I'm spending all my editing time in the talk pages and not on an article - when the discussion on the talk pages have stultified, without conclusion. So instead of continuously warning me, please do this. Cut me off completely from Wikipedia. Or, please keep these people from treating me so coldly, if that's in any way possible. If you think the answer is to set certain pages off limits to me, I'm not comfortable with that, I'd rather be an equal editor (from my IP address) I don't feel comfortable "staying away" from pages, just because other editors are too tired to directly respond to me or read my entreaties and stay on track with me. That's not a good reason for me to "stay away" from a page's talk section. If I were personally attacking or editing out other people's topics or obviously vandalizing pages, then, that would make sense, but this is not what is going on at all. If possible would a disinterested party get into contact with me - and if it means more scolding then PLEASE just BLOCK my IP and have done with it. (I am not comfortable mentioning names yet, maybe this is just me over reacting, I did read the header that says I need to inform the other editors and provide links; if you aren't blocking me after reading this & if you think I need to get the links and inform the other editors, then let me know, I see no reason that I shouldn't, but I'm not experienced at Wikipedia and I don't even know if this is the right place for this message - AGAIN-I HAVE BEEN WARNED NOT TO USE THE TEAHOUSE ANYMORE). Thanks for reading this, if you've gotten this far. I hope you don't freeze out my IP, but if you do, then please continue to make Wikipedia a great website and keep up the good work. No hard feelings. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oy vey, בס״ד. You flood the article talk pages with multiple, lengthy comments —like the above, for example, with it's excessive one-paragraph wall of text and excessive section header— without acquainting yourself with the basics, still. Yes, there is a limit to our collective patience. And still, you have not been sanctioned, which is a testament to the project's welcoming nature. El_C 23:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

בס״ד is not their name, it's part of their signature. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware. And yet it helps me remember, because... words. El_C 23:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought that was a double entendre joke, "Oy vey, with the help of Heaven", and I laughed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It can be two things! El_C 11:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are you having fun at someone else's expense, El C and Levivich? Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm friendly with בס״ד. They have not shown they take offense to the nickname so far throughout multiple encounters. It's not making fun of them, it's lightening up an unfortunate situation. El_C 14:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Great opportunity to use the {{FBDB}} template, El C!^{[Confused editor?]} EEng 05:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• If 172.250.237.36 wants to stop editing Wikipedia, then 172.250.237.36 should just stop editing Wikipedia. If 172.250.237.36, for reasons many of us will understand, can't stop themself from coming here, then a short block might be helpful in breaking the habit. Otherwise I see no need for administrative action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked for 72 hours for persistently wasting the time and patience of constructive editors, which is Wikipedia's most precious resource. I know I'm like a broken record with the "precious resource" thing. Bishonen | tålk 11:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC).

  A search of the phrase "most precious resource" shows that either (a) this is Wikipedia's most-plagiarized phrase or (b) you've got a lot of sockpuppets. EEng 05:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • In my opinion 172.250.237.36 was treated shabbily by very experienced editors long before they were blocked. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    • It's a pity then that you weren't there weeks ago to help them along, and that so many others wasted so much of their time--and getting it all wrong, apparently. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, the clubbiness of "regulars" leave little room for newcomers to fit in. Bus stop (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
        • @Bus stop: I looked at the IP talk page and saw a lot of FORUM stuff, but also saw they were having a tough time navigating the waters. Do you have any diffs where they were treated shabbily? I would like to assist this IP if it is worth it, although they do have a TLDR habit. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Bison X—my hope is that experienced editors will stop trying to frustrate the efforts of inexperienced editors. Wikipedia is not about winning. Bus stop (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
            • No, Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. How did the IP help to do that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
              • You are asking: how did they help to build the encyclopedia? One of many examples: User talk:Bus stop#Attempted Arrest Errors - Talk Item Updated. Constructive suggestions help to build the encyclopedia. In my opinion experienced editors lend a helping hand to inexperienced editors. They do so by taking the inexperienced editor's suggestions seriously and demonstrating the guidelines that apply to edits that are being contemplated. Bus stop (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• I sympathize with new users struggling to find their bearings, but aggressively asserting oneself in a variety of contentious articles and flooding talk pages with spammy forum-y or bludgeon-y or tldr posts is disrutpive, it wastes editors' time and inhibits constructive communication on the talk page. It's all the worse if you're a new user who doesn't know what they're doing. This IP may not have been treated the best but looking at their talk page many editors spent a significant amount of time trying to coach them and help set them on the right path. Really the effort people have been putting into this user is a bit absurd when there's no indication that any of it is getting through to them. Good block. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie92

• Ritchie92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Corriebertus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• European migrant crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor Ritchie92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Rt) to my idea is disturbing and poisoning a good, constructive, respectful working atmosphere on page European migrant crisis by incessant insults and personal attacks on me there. I've asked him on his talk page, on 14 June 2020 and 1 July, to stop with such insults and personal attacking, but so far he denies committing them, so I'd like a statement now from the Wikipedia moderators, telling him to stop such attacks.

1. Rt’s personal attacks on me started on Talk:European migrant crisis on 27 March 2020(14:30) where he accuses me of being “really dishonest” for removing certain reference sources from the article. But there’s nothing dishonest in that removing edit: it was openly, clearly and honestly presented and motivated in my edit summary 27March and I even repeated that removal motivation in my opening statement in the talk section (‘Requested move 27 March 2020’), to give colleagues full and fair opportunity to disagree and ofcourse to revert. Indeed, minutes before 27March14:30, Rt had reverted my edit in the article (though without refuting any of my given motivating arguments for it); but simply disagreeing with my stated opinion and motivated edit is no ground to call someone "dishonest", which therefore is an unacceptable personal attack.
2. The next incident occurred when I had placed a tag ‘citation needed’ on 4 June in the lead of ‘European migrant crisis’, including some thoughts about possible meanings of the word ‘crisis’. Instead of solving the problem the tag was signalling, Rt started this talk section, linking to my placed tag, apparently to attack me for expressing those thoughts about the word ‘crisis’. Rt stated that I “kept going with their argument” about the word crisis “not being defined as "a period (of time)"”, a denigrating (and distorted) representation of either my thoughts about the word crisis or my tag’s request for a citation. Rt thus suggested that I (annoyingly) restarted an ‘argument’ that had been discussed before, but why then didn’t he tell where that presumed earlier discussion took place? Nevertheless, he clearly also wanted to ‘prove’ that my (supposed) ‘argument’ or opinion was wrong (by citing dictionaries). So, his clear message in that posting altogether was: 'I, Rt, know meanings to the word ‘crisis’ that Cb apparently doesn’t know; this ignorance of Cb annoys me; and Cb should not hold arguments on Wikipedia that annoy Rt'. That, in its uncorroborated suggestion that Cb is abusing Wikipedia with improper (repeated) ‘arguments’, is a personal attack.
3. The next attack occurred on 13 June in an edit summary of Rt’s, (again) in article 'European migrant crisis', directly after three motivated edits of mine. Apparently, Rt objected against a new subsection header which I had motivatedly introduced in the course of further updates in the same section (which Rt apparently did not disapprove of). Such simple editing disagreements are everyday’s practice in Wikipedia articles, in fact such disagreements and further improving of each other's work on the basis of (respectful!) arguing and reasoning are the very basis and strength of the unique project that the Wikipedia (interactive encyclopedia) is or wants to be. So it's contradictory, at odds with Wikipedia philosophy, but above all unfounded, insulting and a respectless personal attack, for Rt to say in his edit summary 13 June that the colleague (Cb) who made the previous three edits has "no clue of what and how to write on Wikipedia", at the same time revert only part of those three ('clueless'!?) edits, for no more reason than a simple disagreement over one edit.
4. The comment “(…) and let's not even talk about the writing style”, on 4 June, on Rt's talk page against me, where I had politely tried to address him about what I felt as his insulting behaviour (which he denied having committed), is ofcourse yet another insult and personal attack on me. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is really hard to read, @Corriebertus: can you please gist this, and just point out the diffs where you believe you have been personally attacked (the first one is not a PA). Also, you might think Rt and Cb are proper short forms but it's just harder to keep track of, too short that it mixes with the wall of text that you posted. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• The June 14 exchange was uncivil, the user was appropriately warned for it, and apologized. The July 1st exchange on the other hand is a bit of a tendentious incident coming from the OP. The user was bringing up an incident from nearly a month earlier, in which nothing problematic or uncivil was even said. There's not bringing up past mistakes, and then there's going out of your way to frivolously dig up some harmless incident and then label them as disruptive, even though they're not. Based on the report and links here, I see a problematic exchange which the user has already apologized for, and a bunch of irrelevant nonsense that do not support any of the accusations that have been made. From what I see, the underlying content dispute is that the OP doesn't think "migrant crisis" is appropriate terminology, while the reported user has explained that it is, based on the definitions of what a "crisis" is. This appears to be a bad faith attempt to eliminate an opponent without sufficient cause, based on petty behavioral objections. Not impressed right now. More likely to BOOMERANG the OP than to action the reported user. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would agree that if anything, this should be a boomerang. The addition of the cn tag on the "crisis" part of the title after an RM had resulted in the title being kept is verging on disruptive editing. Can fully understand why Ritchie would be frustrated in having to deal with this. It's also unclear why this has only been brought here now, given that Ritchie has not engaged with this topic for over three weeks. Number 57 22:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi, I share your feeling of confusion at the fact that the OP is still stuck on this matter. It looks like they got great offense by some of my (harsher) statements, also in edit summaries. It is true that some of them were the fruit of my frustration at constantly repairing and copy-editing the (in my opinion – dubious) content that the OP has been adding to the European migrant crisis article. However I apologized to the OP for my reaction already on my talk page, and I thought that was the end of it. Instead the OP kept replying once every one or two weeks, repeating over and over about my incivility, and I don't think that was going to bring anywhere, so I have not been engaging in this discussion and I don't think I should have. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

95.145.94.68

An IP alerted me to another possible IP Vandal and potential disrespectful/rude behaviour towards the administrators (who for the record has not recieved four warnings) at my talk page:

"Hello Good sir PTO. Here’s the issue I’m talking about. User Special:Contributions/95.145.94.68 is continuously vandalises the pages of coronation street characters list and the Emmerdale characters list. Can somebody please ban him? He’s also swearing at June Gloom and bullying him and other administrators if they’ve delete his vandalism, using threatening behaviour, can you get somebody to take care of him please? Check out what he’s doing 2A02:C7F:5063:FA00:10CF:E997:1DA:DBDF(talk) 21:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)"

Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC).

Note that this IP was reported to WP:AIV here [1], but due to a backlog, it was removed by a bot for being stale. As one of the editors who has been targeted by them, some action would be most welcome. - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This editor has now switched to two other IPs [2], and this one just tried impersonating myself and another editor [3] & [4]. - JuneGloom07 Talk 15:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Request help with article consistently being vandalized

This SPA has been vandalizing the article Nahko and Medicine for the People. Requesting ban, or perhaps partial protection of the article due to the contentiousness of the allegations recently made against Nahko and his bandmates. Linking SPA contributions:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:6000:140F:802C:B10C:D9B5:2260:3E47 werewolf (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you really been editing since 2007? The IP user is removing too much content and proving a point, but the real focus of their complaint is the recently inserted unsourced allegations paragraph. Unproven allegations are one thing, which should always be treated with a great deal of caution, but unsourced allegations of this nature are simply always unacceptable. I've therefore removed the paragraph, and deleted it from the history, and taken no action against the other user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, zzuuzz, that was a lot of sifting. Weel done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You should see what I can achieve after I've had some morning coffee, and I'm not on a wikibreak. And if any of you are still not using WP:POPUPS, you might want to. So anyway, before anyone hastily closes this, at this time there remains on the talk page some commentary on the allegations. There's a lot of Facebooking going on, including by the subject, but I don't see a whole lot else... this is probably one of those situations where some experienced eyes will come in useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that section should be blanked. We are not FaceBook and FaceBook posturing is no substitute for for WP:RS. WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well as anywhere else. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

zzuuzz You could have said the same thing without resorting to ad hominems. There is never any call for being a jerk to other users simply for being unaware of something or making a mistake. Get off your high horse. werewolf (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling for a ban of someone with a possibly legitimate grievance is somewhat jerkish too, don't you think?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. 1. Vandalizing an article shouldn't be a behaviour we condone. I'm surprised to see a complete lack of condemnation of this action here among administrators. 2. Is the grievance legitimate? The allegations have in fact been made, a cursory google search proves this. Whether or not the allegations are true is a separate matter, and the article never stated that they were. 3. Why would calling for the ban of an article vandalizer be jerkish? Mistaken or misinformed, sure, but jerkish? Perhaps you are using the wrong word. 4. According to your logic, it would seem that one "jerkish" action calls for a "jerkish" reaction. An eye for an eye, or perhaps stooping down to the level of another jerk. Is that really a position you wish to stand by? werewolf (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please realise that real-world allegations of such conduct are more important than any local Wikipedia rules about vandalism. If such allegations are not supported by reliable sources as being correct then we shouldn't be repeating them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can refrain from jerk language. A lack of condemnation for doing the right thing (and you agree this is the right thing, right?) is not the same as condoning the way it was achieved. Secretly though, I admire their perseverance. It would have been better all round if they were able to successfully and tidily remove the paragraph in good faith and in accordance with policies, as they attempted to do, without being reverted as a common vandal.[5] Like it or not, whichever horse I'm sitting on, that reversion was plain wrong and not expected from an experienced editor. And bottom line, with this inappropriate paragraph gone, I'd expect no more editing from this IP: good, bad, or questionable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand the point being made. I perceived the user's actions as vandalism since the allegations have indeed been made and they were attempting to conceal this fact from the article. My mistake for not realizing that this shouldn't be included in the article if the allegations aren't strongly supported. I stand by what I said earlier, however, that your language wasn't necessary. You could have let me know that I had blundered without necessarily making me feel stupid or inexperienced. werewolf (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Date changing IP Vandal

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

I have seen this behavior pattern before but don't remember where. LTA? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know of any long term abuse, but another IPv6 made similar edits... albeit a bit different. Here are there contributions. Another Ipv4 made edits right before that. Granted, these were a year ago, but it might help in figuring out who it is. I'll look through some SPIs and LTAs and see what I find. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The /21 is all bad: Special:Contributions/23.169.64.0/21. Eagle Mountain, Utah. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/23.169.64.0/21 for three months after seeing a bunch of arbitrary date changing. The IPv6 user was two edit on 6 April 2020 so I took no action there. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Appealing my topic ban

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Appealing my topic ban

 – — Newslinger talk 04:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User is acting as a bully against genealogies of monarchies

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

---

I have *NEVER* seen such a bias on Wikipedia. User:Agricolae is *single-handedly* deleting swaths of information and has already been reverted and given notices by other people several times for the same reasons.

The deletions in question involve a "questionable source" for which there is a special page dedicated to that debate, and where it is confirmed by consensus albeit admitting some "uncertainty" to be a still "valid" source: the talk page of Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley.

I am dismayed at all of the information that has been removed. Here are some examples:

• The entire recent contributions page of this user is basically deletion (big bytes in red font) on similar topics, usually again pertaining to the Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley source.
• Franks: [6]
• Medici family tree: [7]
• House of Plantagenet: [8]
• William the Conqueror's family tree: diff (major link removed, this is *definitely* not acceptable for an experienced Wikipedia editor)
• History of the English line of succession: diff (The edit summary that was given for this diff is to be honest, ridiculous.)
• Mercia (pre-English kingdom) family tree: file history

Proposal: Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley has been used as a source on Wikipedia for a long time and if there are objections it must be brought up on its talk page because the consensus has already been reached in the past and unless it is formally changed then these behaviors are unacceptable. The user should no longer engage in such disruptive editing at the consequence of a community topic ban on the genealogies of monarchies.

Altanner1991 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This is absurd. The "William the Conqueror's family tree" complaint relates to a diff from 2012, and removes a link which at the time pointed to Pope Callixtus II, who was a different person than mentioned on the family tree. If a correct, 8-year old diff is what the complainant feels is "*definitely* not acceptable" and worth our time at ANI, it is their judgment I question. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

After more examination, this seems to be a content dispute over whether Otto I is a descendant of Louis the Pious, which Altanner1991 is trying to win by arguing a behavior dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you show where consensus was reached that Medieval Lands was a reliable source and you have informed the editor about this? If not, it is a content dispute and should be discussed at RSN. I can't see anything at RSN where it is declared reliable and in fact I voted against it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley about 8 years ago. TFD (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed the noticeboard had concluded the source was unreliable but the Cawley talk page (from later in 2012) had ended with supporters. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User:THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101

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

---

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE: they have mostly made edits to their sandbox and userpage (both of which are currently tagged with U5 and may be deleted shortly) and to talk pages (disruptively) as at Talk:List of largest stars. Some example replies:

• "Whoa! WOH G64 is 2,100 solar radii??? and HV 888 only 1,300??? LOL! Sam Halls will be embarrassed seeing this ! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Let's Discuss and mock him so he will be forced to Redo his article ! --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)"
• "Also mine.I already exceeded 300 + edits, and made a list of Users whom I surpassed in terms of Edit Numbers. I have something to tell, Reply To the comment about SpaceImplorerExplorer and an IP User who does not like extreme numbers and how they should appreciate the extremities of the universe In #RX Telescopii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)"
• "What star is that? is it RHI84 10-683 ??????? Oh My GOSH ! STEPHENSON 2-18 IS ABOUT TO LOOSE ITS TITLE AGAIN TO AN INACCURATE STAR ! I CAN'T HANDLE THIS ANYMORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  I'm not angry.--THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)"

There's lots more on that talk page which could be helpful in this discussion. My conclusion is that this user is WP:NOTHERE and is misusing Wikipedia as a forum (at least to an extent). There are also WP:CIR issues here. JavaHurricane 04:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Don't threaten Me... If yoyu do I will become toxic... Don't agitate me... I will become VERY mad. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe the above reply (which I consider a threat) perfectly demonstrates my point. See also [9] and [10] for more. JavaHurricane 04:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Im Going to delete Everything. BYE. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Their replies here really tell me everything I need to know...but looking at their contribs its mostly garbage. I have NOTHERE'd them, they are welcome to format a reasonable unblock request, but I'm not holding out hope. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from 2020Editor

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

---

2020Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Legal threat and here. I dropped them a warning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

lblocked. I just don't think a warning is enough, in this case. If they categorically withdraw the legal threat, they may be unblocked. El_C 00:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Noting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dubai knowsitsall --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Editor without willingness to learn

The editor The kan123 has repeatedly added endorsements of living people to the article List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. I have given then 2 warnings on their talk page and editor MelbourneStar gave them 3 warnings. The my continued to edit without responding except by saying “ you’re annoyingly” in response to my most recent warning where I had to revert two of their edits. I have encouraged them and given them links to the tea house, the endorsement page, as well as my talk page where I offered to help. It also appears that they misused their user page as it was deleted with a warning stating that they did not follow Wikipedia guidelines. While this editor seemed to make one or two genuine edits, they do not seem willing to learn/improve and their uncivility makes me believe they are not here to help the project of Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The user has just three edits outside of that article, and they border on bad-faith edits (see [11], [12]). I also believe this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The kan123, I strongly recommend politely and patiently explaining your actions here, because refusing to talk to other editors except to call them annoying will not get you far. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit: @Lima Bean Farmer:, please amend your notification of the user. It says the discussion is at AN, not ANI. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely concur with Lima Bean Farmer and Jprg1966; editor seems unwilling to get the point and at the very least, read WP:ENDORSE which is crystal clear -- let alone describe their edits in an edit summary or to adequately respond to queries. Labeling a good faith editor as "annoying" is the icing on the cake. If The kan123 is unable/unwilling to adequately respond to this, I too, believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia - collaborative or otherwise. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at the deleted userpage. It turns out it was created and then edited (with childish nonsense) by the now blocked DaltoReborn on 13 July. According to Ponyo, a checkuser, DaltoReborn is a confirmed sock of DaltoUprising.[13] I conclude that The kan123 is one too, though I suppose there may be about 1% doubt about that. Not sure whether to block as a sock or per WP:NOTHERE. Ponyo, what do you say? Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: technically it's  Inconclusive with large ranges and common UAs involved, so much so that I'd feel more comfortable a block coming based on their individual behaviour as opposed to tying them to the DaltoUprising group.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much, Ponyo. On second thoughts NOTHERE might be overly harsh. I have partially blocked the user for a week from List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements for persistent uncollaborativeness. Giving them "annoying" warnings or advice is obviously pointless. Bishonen | tålk 19:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

Is InternetArchiveBot malfunctioning?

Special:Contributions/InternetArchiveBot. Seems to be placing non-existent or foreign language templates all over the place. Adam9007 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Adam9007, I've temp blocked in meantime but this is far from my area of expertise so anyone please unblock if there's a better solution. In the meantime pinging @Cyberpower678: and @Kaldari: for feedback? Glen 03:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Glen, I've reverted all instances of {{Lidhje e thyer}} in articles I can find, but I haven't touched the foreign-language messages the bot left. Adam9007 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Lidhje_e_thyer still has a half-dozen (other than this here discussion:) DMacks (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

DMacks, They should all be gone now. Thanks. I'd missed those. Adam9007 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I made a change to the Albanian wiki (sqwiki) configuration and it seems to have overwritten the enwiki cfg with the Albanian cfgs. Weird. Thanks for the halt and cleanup. -- GreenC 04:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle internetarchive bot.

The thing is posting...well, look for yourselves. Qwirkle (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, See above :). Adam9007 (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Merged into above. SQL^{Query me!} 04:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User Visioncurve / Anthony J. Tata entry

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

---

I can find no way to contact Visioncurve. I went to his page and there is no way to contact him.

In discussing Tata's school board service, the article used "democratic majority" instead of "Democratic majority." The majority was from the Democratic Party, not those holding democratic beliefs. I edited pitalized Democratic.

The school board dismissed him because of concerns over his leadership style. The article put quotation marks around "leadership style," a common way of negating a term used by an adversary. This is inappropriate and prejudicial for a Wikipedia article.

User Visioncurve undid my edit, saying it "was not constructive," and re-edited democratic with a small "d" and replaced the quotation marks.

This user Visioncurve should be investigated to determine that he is really who he says he is, and not a Russian troll sewing dissent in the U.S., and he should be removed from his position at Wikipedia for his prejudicial conduct, and sent back to from wherever his immigrant ancestors came (figuratively speaking). This kind of behavior taints the respectability of Wikipedia.

John King, age 77, Denver, Colorado USA, a Savage from Virginia, the oldest immigrant family in America, and descendant of Wahunsenacawh, Mamanatowik of the Powhatan Nation (Chief Powhatan), and descendant of Rollo, first Duke of Normandy, who established the Rule of Law in the West. I love my country and the Rule of Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.208.30.69 (talk)

IP editor, if you wish to contact Visioncurve, leave a message on his talk page and start a new section with one of the buttons at the top of the page. Please assume good faith of other editors until there is sufficient evidence otherwise. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr King, first of all, let me put your mind at ease and assure you that my revert has nothing to do with the Russians (I feel sad that this phrase passed its peak of popularity...). The sole intention of my revert was to remove the question: (who was his second wife?) you had posted at the bottom of the "Personal life" section of the article, which was indeed not constructive (next time, please use article's talk page if you have any questions regarding an article). As for that "Democratic majority" phrase, to tell the truth, I still don't quite understand how my revert actually had an impact on that as well, as I clearly remember that I saw only the above-mentioned edit in the "Personal life" section. I think that should be put down to the fact that there was almost no time between your first and second edit, and unfortunately, my revert accidentally nullified them both. Keep well and stay safe! Thanks! Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 10:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

sent back to from wherever his immigrant ancestors came

I think this rather racist comment from the IP has been overlooked in the above rant. That alone deserves a WP:BOOMERANG. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

IP: this isn't a serious complaint, it's a rant, larded with a weird xenophobic insult and concluding with a very odd claim of...what? patriotism? Who gives a damn who the hell you descended from? No one will claim to be descended from the garçon de pis, and yet... Anyway, I don't know why you weren't able to edit User talk:Visioncurve. Try clicking "edit". Then, all this Russian troll stuff, just drop it. It looks silly. Anyway, you were right about the D and wrong about the quotation marks--quotation marks are also used to, ahem, indicate that something is a quotation. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies:, @HandThatFeeds:, guys, please don't bother, just leave him alone. He is 77 years old, and that should tell you the whole story... --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 10:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And what is the purpose of that bigoted remark? A perwson's age is no indication of their intelligence, and a stupid remark could just as easily be made by a 27-year-old as a 77-year-old. This agism is no more acceptable than the apparent racism in the original comment. RolandR (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Descendent of Rollo, First Duke of Normandy. Since that was over 1,000 years ago, 40 generations ago, statistically 1/4 of the planet is a descendent of Rollo. Canterbury Tail talk 12:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

IS 7 foolery

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

---

someone messed with the IS 7 wikipedia article

making it say in action "It became a war tank in the 1809's from way back in the 1620 they had war that was included the is7"

iduno who did it or if i am even reporting this right i just wanted to make that little foolery known?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.237.11 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Y Thanks for reporting this. It looks like it’s been sorted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Impersonation of an admin to close an AfD

User:Fish end karete closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simply Nailogical after only one vote! and after only 5 days. Clicking on their user name redirects to User: Fish and karate who is an admin. This is clearly a deliberate impersonation of an admin in order to protect a page where the user has some interest in preserving. The account claims to be a doppleganger account of the genuine admin but there is no evidence on the admin user page or talk page of any such account. The knowledge of AfD processes, use of doppleganger accounts etc suggests a sock. All edits from this account have been today.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It would have been easy to rollback these changes if MusikBot II's FixPP task hadn't been abused to prevent rollback. I have disabled the task in Special:Diff/969944700 and informed MusikAnimal about the issue now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ach, so! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

All the blocking, deleting, reverting and protecting looks done now. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Developers is clearly the focus of this sock drawer's attention. Cabayi (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree, thank you. I noticed this the other day, how this ahole exploited that little loophole. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And they're back. Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Code page 875 Hog Farm _Bacon 11:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Well, under a different name at least. Must be a sock or two left in the drawer. Might be worth having a checkuser determine if it's all the same IP and if it can be account creation blocked without collateral damage. Hog Farm _Bacon 11:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It is Kingshowman, and also the new one today has already been dealt with very efficiently. --T*U (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Riku maina and NOTHERE

Riku maina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user appears to be obsessed with various Manchester United F.C. players past and present, and continues to add content to the lead section of articles such as Ryan Giggs, Denis Law, Ruud van Nistelrooy and Michael Carrick despite the objections of other editors. I have attempted to contact the user on their talk page, but despite having edited on Wikipedia since January 2019, their only edit to a talk page in that time was to their own talk page, making a spurious claim about having a reliable source for their edits, which has never been the issue as far as I can see. Given that they are clearly WP:NOTHERE to collaborate on building an encyclopaedia, I think it's about time they were blocked from editing. – PeeJay 10:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the edits largely constitute FANCRUFT and whilst some content might be suitable elsewhere in those articles, not in the lede. Their refusal to use edit summaries or engage, and their repeated editing pattern, means that a block would be suitable. GiantSnowman 10:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans

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

---

Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) has accused two editors of stalking their edits without proof and made personal attacks.

• I reverted his numerous changes to January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation made by Snooganssnoogans and had yet to be able to chime in at the talkpage when he showed up both on that article talk and at my userpage with: "Do not stalk me and indiscriminately revert me, as you did on January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation (a page you've never edited before). You restored a bunch of completely indefensible content, including recently added citations to deprecated sources (such as RT) and a crap op-ed in the lead that accuses progressives of being anti-Catholicism. Your behavior on that page is a disservice to the Wikipedia project."[14] Telling me my "behavior on that page is a disservice to the Wikipedia project" is ridiculous. I reviewed his changes, reverted myself and then examined each of his changes on the article talkpage, where he has yet to even bother to chime in since. I even agreed with some of his changes. He doesn't own pages, sorry.[15]
• Here he accuses another editor of stalking them [16]. As he is on a 1RR restriction he alerts others about a "stalker revert"[17], then refers to the same editor as engaging in "creepy harassment"[18].

I am tired of these kind of bad faith accusations. I initially did not agree with Snooganssanoogans changes, reverted them but then restored and analyzed them. I don't need to be accused of stalking and have my edits accused of being a "disservice to the Wikipedia project". That's bullshit and I am calling Snoogansnoogans on it.--MONGO (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of stalking (based on looking at the linked page and its talk page), nor do I see indiscriminate reversion (explanations were given in the edit summaries. Obviously, I'm not commenting where I stand content-wise). I agree that accusations of stalking should not be used lightly. Snooganssnoogans, if you have diffs that show that MONGO is stalking you, please provide them. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Shortly after I made a series of edits to the page, you indiscriminately reverted all of my edits (which included restoring deprecated sources and a ludicrous statement in the lead which accused progressives of being anti-Catholicism). You had never edited the page before nor commented on the talk page. The combination of no verifiable history on the page coupled with the ludicrous nature of the revert led me to accuse you of stalking me to the page. Since you say that you watchlisted the article[19] and given that others are vouching for you[20], you have my sincere apologies for the false accusation. As for Malerooster, that editor is 100% stalking me, as shown by the diffs here (which includes editing on very obscure pages)[21]. The behavior of Malerooster, coupled with numerous editors in the past who were 100% confirmed to hound me and warned by administrators for doing so (incl. Winkelvi, SashiRolls and James J. Lambden), sheds light on why I may have been too eager to accuse you of stalking. It is a reason, not an excuse. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You lost me at "ludicrous nature of the revert". This is Wikipedia and sorry but your edits are not all gold and unworthy being "edited mercilessly" Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content and once you hit publish changes, they do not belong to you nor to me.--MONGO (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I did not realize this was a common thing. It recently happened with me when I reverted them at Tyson Foods.[22] PackMecEng (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• You did stalk me to that page. Two minutes after responding to me on the admin noticeboard[23], you followed me to the page (which you had never edited before), only to revert me in full and make sure that the lead of the article no longer summarized the body of the article[24]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Like Mongo that page was on my watchlist for a long time and never got around to editing it. In my past life I used to be in the food packaging industry, that is the Pack in my username. The timing is because that is when I got back to my computer and saw my watchlist. PackMecEng (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I think you should stop posting the 'please stop stalking and reverting me indiscriminately' accusation in general. There are many ways an editor you're familiar with from having opposing views might wind up editing the same page you do. Even following your edits doesn't necessarily make them stalkers. There are a couple of people whose edits I occasionally follow out of curiosity and it has occurred that I've changed or reverted their edits. That doesn't make me a stalker nor have any of the victims ever accused me of being one. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess one relevant distinction is whether you're being reverted in order to needle, provoke, intimidate, skunk you, or whether you're being reverted because the reverter believes it is the better version for an encyclopedia. Ultimately, only the reverters can answer this, but I don't sense any creepy stalking with MONGO or PackMecEng's edit(s). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The beauty of editing on American politics-related pages is that every single substantive addition of content can be reverted with the justification "WP:NPOV". In the past when I've been 100% confirmed to have been stalked, admins only acted when the stalkers went to non-politics-related pages to continue the harassment (e.g. Winkelvi[25], SashiRolls[26]). Was it not stalking before that point just because the editors could always plausibly argue "NPOV" every time that they reverted me in US politics-editing? This is not a defense of baseless accusations of stalking –I'm just pointing out that in practice, someone intent on stalking someone else in American politics-related editing could do so without ever falling afoul of the standard you set. If I were intent on nullifying someone else's editing in a controversial sphere of Wikipedia, I could follow them around (which you say is alright), act civilly and cite Wiki guidelines in all my reverts, and tie the other editor up on the talk page. It would serve the goal of nullifying the other editor's contributions, wasting their time and annoying them, but it would not cross any red line in terms of stalking (as you would define it). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean, yet I definitely don't equate MONGO and PackMecEng's behaviour with Winkelvi and SashiRoll's, not by a long shot. I don't think you're being followed around like that by MONGO and PackMecEng. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• MONGO, it sure looks like WP:OWN to me. The same with PackMecEng so he doubled down - with two different articles. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  No, it's not about WP:OWN. It's about the same groups of editors, allocated on two sides, battling each other over every conceivable instance where they stand opposed on whatever political spectrum you choose. It's tedious. It's tiring. It's unproductive. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• This bad faith reaction on Snoogan's part is a reoccurring problem. In addition to MONGO and PackMecEng, GlassBones[[27]], Malerooster[[28]], Calidum[[29]] and myself[[30]] have been accused of "stalking" in the last few months. Additional editors have been accused of stalking in the recent past; Toa Nidhiki05[[31]], Dy3o2[[32]], 84percent[[33]], KidAd[[34]]. The common theme is Snoogan's makes a lot of edits. Many of those edits are POINTy and not in frequently low quality. Not long ago Snoogan's was the subject of an ANI for edit warring when others objected to such edits [[35]]. Part of that sanction included a civility warning from Awilley. Note that the "additional editors" were accused prior to that Nov 2019 ANI. Ultimately Snoogan's feels they are righting great wrongs by patrolling many pages and preventing the POV edits from making it to articles[[36]]. All the while they are ignoring their own similar edits. Other editors take a look at something Snoogans has done, see the problematic nature of the edits and revert. That fails to meet WP:HOUND. However, accusing others of hounding rather than reflecting on the reoccurring problems with Snoogan's own edits is also a problem. Being a prolific editor isn't a benefit to Wikipedia if many of those edits result in lower quality or less neutral/impartial articles. If Snoogan's can recognize the problem with their own edits then perhaps they shouldn't be making those edits. Springee (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Only commenting because my name was invoked, and I'll try to keep it short. Springee's assessment above is (partly) correct. Snooganssoogans is a very prolific editor and mainly edits within the American politics (post-1932) subject area. I believe Snoogans is a fundamentally productive contributor, who is willing to "get down in the weeds" and edit the pages of conspiracy theorists, fringe thinkers, far-right provocateurs, and other abhorrent individuals. After spending significant time in that corner of American politics, it's only natural that one believes others may be targeting them. Snoogans has been the target of harrassement and hounding, off- and on-site. (See this google search) for a taste. Taking a glance at the interaction tool between Snooganssoogans and MONGO, it becomes clear that the two interacted on talk pages – discussing controversial subjects – prior to the alleged stalking. It is not difficult to notice a user pop up on talk pages or page histories a few too many times and think "is this more than a coincidence?" KidAd (💬💬) 02:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Odd because his name does pop up on many pages on my watchlist yet I rarely if ever bother to edit those pages or engage them in discussion. Over the past couple years I can think of 2 times we exchanged a conversation about content directly one on one. I go to those pages and make an edit and both times am attacked....accused of stalking him, told my edits are ludicrous, am told I am "edit warring" after I make ONE revert of his edit...[37].--MONGO (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

How is it that I, mostly an observer of articles on current American politics, am less astonished on this particular clash. I don't buy it. Please be more sincere, then we might actually achieve a step forward in this boring battle. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to roll out my Wiki-resume and edit history to show this editor and I have only had a tiny few exchanges but when they do always start off with him assuming the worst of me. Even the pages we may comment on we are not "talking" with each other. I just checked the talkpage for the Donald Trump article and I don't see us conversing directly...I could be mistaken of course. I go and revert him twice and am attacked...apparently this is a ongoing pattern of which I am but one person to have had this experience of him telling editors they are stalking him etc.--MONGO (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

They don't even bother to respond to me after I make a comment. In the two times I can think of us "discussing" anything, he posts his inflammatory tirade then I respond and he never comes back. Does he expect me to offer him a pink unicorn to cuddle by in my wording or just turn the other cheek. I'm not posturing for an admin run so why the hell would I put up with his bad faith accusations?--MONGO (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see my username invoked as I haven't been active on Wikipedia in a while. There are editors that I have had disagreements with; I've even learned from them and apologized, but Snoog is by far the most aggressively mean-spirited editor I have come across - Snoog is a bully. We need diverse people to contribute and balance each other out on these articles, but Snoog's continual lashing out at people make apparent that their biases are so large they don't believe they should be subjected to Wiki's checks and balance system. Snoog does not engage in good faith dialogue and is not afraid to quickly escalate any interaction to demoralize any new contributor they disagree with. I know some have commented on some of Snoog's merits, but frankly, editors like Snoog tarnish the brand and authority of Wikipedia. Dy3o2 (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• So we have some edits by snooganssnoogans, a revert by mongo, a hasty accusation by snoogans, a restoration of some of the edits (and discussion) by mongo, and here an apology by snoogans for the accusation. Then we have a whole bunch of other inevitable stuff complete with pings of many people who have been in disputes with snoogans in the past (I'm not saying those pings were inappropriate btw). There seems little doubt that snoogans has been stalked by multiple people in the past. There is also little doubt that snoogans is being too quick to assume as much. How about this for a close to avoid a potentially long, heated thread: "The issue that brought us here is resolved and discussed on the talk page. All editors are reminded that stalking other editors' edits is unacceptable, and snoogans is cautioned to be careful with accusations of stalking." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I fully reverted myself and have not restored anything. No, I think Snooganssnoogans needs a site ban but that will only come with a full arbcom case.--MONGO (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I fully reverted myself and have not restored anything - This is what I meant by "restoration of some of [snoogans'] edits". Perhaps I should've said all. I wasn't saying you did anything wrong at all FWIW. I do agree with one thing, though: a sprawling ANI thread with various people bringing up old issues is unlikely to accomplish anything, especially when the matter that prompted it is more or less resolved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I personally would not say mine is old. Also it demonstrates a long term issue that does not seem to be addressed. PackMecEng (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Long-term disruption at Falun Gong by User:TheBlueCanoe (involves the deprecated The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and various other closely related entities)

Bear with me here: Anyone encountering this ANI stands to benefit from reading this NBC News article from August 2019 ("Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times"), this New Yorker article from March 2019 ("Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling World of Shen Yun"), and this 2019 article from Radio France Internationale ("Shen Yun: Fighting Communism - and making a stack on the side").

Other useful coverage can be found in a September 2019 article from The New Republic ("The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe"), a July 2020 ABC News (Australia) article ("The Power of Falun Gong"), and a June 2020 Axios roundup of recent coverage of Falun Gong attempts to influence US government policy via the Trump administration ("In media agency shakeup, conservative groups push for Falun Gong-backed internet tools").

So, while visiting a city in the US earlier this year (back when we could still do this), I found myself bombarded with ads from Shen Yun, a performance arts group who claim to have revived ancient tradition. As editors who have worked with me here know, I write quite a lot about folklore studies topics on Wikipedia. So I decided to dig a little deeper into the group's background and claims. After reading some of the above pieces, I was shocked to see that Wikipedia had no coverage of what reliable media sources have been reporting about Falun Gong and its extensions like Shen Yun since around 2016. Upon turning to English Wikipedia's article on Falun Gong, the new religious movement behind Shen Yun, I was particularly surprised by how much it read as a promotional piece, totally ignoring any of the increasing media coverage surrounding the topic around the group's far-right pivot and accompanying political involvement. As a regular over at Wikipedia's fringe noticeboard, and since I found that Falun Gong leader and founder Li Hongzhi has made all sorts of deeply fringe statements about aliens, homosexuality, and any other number of topics, I decided to go ahead and begin looking for and adding missing coverage. Surely an oversight, I thought.

Well, soon I learned that the absence of this coverage was quite intentional: Single-purpose account editors camped out at the page would quickly revert any mention of these topics. In the article body in particular there appears to have been a general attempt to obfuscate or downplay the central, hierarchal role of leader Li Hongzhi. The article didn't even mention Dragon Springs, a large Falun Gong compound—its de facto headquarters—in Deerpark, New York, or the two Falun Gong schools. There was certainly no discussion about any of the topics raised by the above media sources.

For example, while The Epoch Times and Shen Yun claim otherwise, media sources make it clear that these groups and numerous others operate as Falun Gong extensions, or, as reliable news sources put it: As "Falun Gong media" ("Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as 'our media'"]), "Falun Gong outreach efforts" ("The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong") or, more straightforwardly, "religious-political propaganda" or "commercials" ("The ads have to be both ubiquitous and devoid of content so that they can convince more than a million people to pay good money to watch what is, essentially, religious-political propaganda" ... "elaborate commercial for Falun Dafa’s spiritual teachings"), just as a few examples. (And, of course, as of fairly recently, The Epoch Times has been altogether deprecated as a source here on English Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources).

Instead, English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article portrayed Falun Gong as something of an ancient, decentralized tradition persecuted by the Chinese government—just as Falun Gong presents itself—and little else. Not a word about supporting far-right movements over here in Germany, nothing whatsoever about Dragon Springs and Falun Gong schools, and not a whisper about massive monetary support for the Trump campaign in 2016 and since (take a look at the May 14, 2020 revision). While it is no doubt true that adherents in China are persecuted there (the Chinese government is, of course, well known for persecution), the religious group is indeed quite new, as a large amount of academic sources have made perfectly clear: Like Scientology, it's a new religious movement, and scholars don't mince words about this: "Western scholars view Falun Gong as a new religious movement (NRM) though any connection or claim to religion by adherents is strenously denied by adherents." (Farley, Helen. 2014. "Falun Gong: A Narrative of Pending Apocalypse, Shape-Shifting, Aliens, and Relentless Persecution" in Lewis, James R. (editor). Controversial New Religions, p. 241. Oxford University Press.)

And like when Scientology was revealed to have meddled with Wikipedia's coverage (Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia), the article swarms with single-purpose accounts ready to lawyer, scrub, and revert away that which does not echo Falun Gong's claims.

Perhaps the most visible editor camped out at the article is User:TheBlueCanoe. Consider this timeline of diffs, wherein myself and others add to the article, and TheBlueCanoe repeatedly removes all 'negative' media coverage of Falun Gong, only giving an inch here or there when a position no longer appears sustainable. Diffs:

• May 19, 2020: I add NBC News coverage to the Falun Gong article
• May 19, 2020a: TheBlueCanoe removes media sources
• May 19, 2020b: Assuming good faith or misunderstanding, I modify the material and add more—but The Blue Canoe removes all 'critical' the media sources again
• May 22, 2020: After another editor restores them, TheBlueCanoe again scrubs the article of 'critical' media sources (Involves @PaleoNeonate:)
• May 24, 2020: TheBlueCanoe again removes all 'critical' media sources (Involves @Mojoworker:)
• June 5, 2020: TheBlueCanoe yet again removes all 'critical' media sources
• June 26, 2020: TheBlueCanoe removes most 'critical' media coverage and all mention of Dragon Springs (Involves @Doug Weller:)
• July 13, 2020: TheBlueCanoe strips summary of political involvement and accompanying 'critical' media sources from lead
• July 27, 2020: Yet more of the same

This would have undoubtedly continued indefinitely until either myself or other editors just gave up on adding to the article or an administrator intervened. Fortunately, an adminstrator did step in, @Guerillero:, and indefinitely locked the article to non-administrators on July 27, 2020. ([38]) Unfortunately, no further action has been taken about the repeated scrubbing, so it's hard to expect much else when the protection is eventually lifted.

It's very difficult to view the above diffs as anything more than scrubbing. It's obvous that the NBC News sources above are quality reliable sources. These events and connections are important and require coverage. However, it's easy to picture that, sooner or later, maybe even as soon as the article is no longer protected, TheBlueCanoe will simply swoop in again and strip the media sources out once more.

I later learned that TheBlueCanoe had aggressively removed similar material from the article before I came along. Compare this August 30, 2019 revert by TheBlueCanoe, wherein TheBlueCanoe stripped the NBC News piece from the article before the above diffs, and this May 15, 2020 revert by TheBlueCanoe, which dared to mention Falun Gong's connection to, for example, the Q Anon conspiracy theory promoted by The Epoch Times) (@Nathan868:. This approach has been the case since at least 2013, over time the user snowballed to remove all 'negative' coverage of Falun Gong (see the thread to which this June 14 2013 diff is attached, and here's another from June 29, 2013 — there are plenty more). Sure, these old edits have their issues, but while we're not likely to refer to Falun Gong as a "cult" in Wikivoice (and shouldn't)—cult is a term scholars generally don't use in that colloquial context—we do need coverage of why and how this appelation is so commonly applied to the new religious movement, and by who, for example.

Anyway, taken as a whole, it seems to me that there's a clear, long-term pattern here for what is essentially a single purpose account. TheBlueCanoe has been a long-term disruptive presence on Wikipedia's Falun Gong page, yet while I have edited, the account contributes next to nothing to the article itself. There's not a lot of contribution happening here, but a lot of disruption.

TheBlueCanoe is not alone. Notably, in the background are the other entrenched editors who step in to echo TheBlueCanoe. When I came around on May 19 to introduce the media sources, @Cleopatran Apocalypse: unsuccessfully sought to have me topic banned ([39]). This yielded various admin comments noting that there appeared to be some level of off-wiki collusion occuring to shape the Falun Gong article. This editor also has a history of, for example, defending The Epoch Times. ([40]) Other editors have also mysteriously appeared out of the woodwork to either revert to TheBlueCanoe's preferred version or to echo him on the talk page: Take @Bstephens393: as an example. This account's first edit since 2013 was on May 19, 2020—as you'll note, the very day I added the media sources—at which time he popped in to agree with TheBlueCanoe ([41]) and weigh in Cleopatran's attempt to have yours truly topic banned ([42]). There's no shortage of stuff like this around this and related articles.

I think it's important to emphasize that, despite the drive-by media source stripping and wall-of-text attempts at somehow lawyering away or hiding the above media sources, myself and others have continued building the article out with quality sources. Some of the editors who have endured the onslaught of revisions—and involved in some of the diffs above—include @Horse Eye Jack: and @Binksternet:, both of whom built English Wikipedia's new Dragon Springs from material introduced in the Falun Gong article.

In short, Falun Gong and related articles would greatly benefit from administrators willing to step in and take action when an account comes along and attempts to scrub the article of media sources or anything else that might seem 'critical' or 'unfair' to the article's subjects: After all, Wikipedia isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be quite possible — even fairly straightforward — to present a diametrically opposite story of events over the last couple of months. Indeed, my complaint about User:Bloodofox's abusive tone, personal attacks, aggressive style, and bullying did so, to a certain degree.

It would also be fairly straightforward to present a completely different narrative of the topic in question. In general, I think that Wikipedia should favor high quality scholarship over media reporting, and WP:RECENT is to be avoided. High quality scholarship is distinguished from media reporting because (in this case) it is typically ethnographic work, or detailed textual analysis, by scholars with relevant, established expertise, including linguistic expertise and cultural knowledge. Such scholars have often spent years embedded in Falun Gong communities, or have a background in Chinese religions, and they portray a rather different state of affairs to that Bloodofox depicts. No one has said that media sources should not be used. These are disputes about emphasis and due weight. For example, is it appropriate to have several longish blockquotes from media reports on some recondite question of FLG practice...? That sort of thing.

The main problem with this complaint, if that is what it is, is that it seeks to preempt a resolution on the question of how Falun Gong should be handled on Wikipedia by biasing readers with Bloodofox's preferred emphases and interests in the topic. Imagine the opposite complaint that started with how a poor innocent faith community that only believes in truth and tolerance is being persecuted by a big bad communist state who harvest their organs, and there are some editors here who are trying to persecute them even more by perpetuating that propaganda. I would hope such an effort would be looked upon rather dimly.

As for the edits Bloodofox highlights: each was preceded and followed by extensive debate on the talk page. Some editors engaged in that debate by focusing on the content, issues of due weight, and sourcing; others called names, made personal attacks, and went into long FORUMing about how their views on the article subject are the only legitimate views to have.

As for my "history" of "defending the Epoch Times," people can read my comment for themselves (I had forgotten about it and don't think I contributed much after that). I have become quite familiar with the literature on this topic since getting into these disputes, but I kind of hate touching the pages because of how nasty and personal it gets. If you do not subscribe to a certain narrative, you get called an apologist. I so strongly object to this. The bullying, name-calling, aggressive edit warring are the actual major problems here. It's natural that people are going to have divergent views on a phenomenon like this. The whole point is to hash out such differences in good faith. Bloodofox seems to think that is becoming increasingly difficult, and I would fully agree.

In fact, the incident that apparently triggered this complaint perfectly illustrates why. The other day, user:Binksternet removed [43] from the article the three main beliefs of Falun Gong, and inserted a conference paper by a scholar who argues that those beliefs are in fact a "tactic for evading deeper inquiry" and that members of Falun Gong are instructed to lie about their practice. This was a dubious representation of the original source anyway, it turned out.

Note that the central beliefs of Falun Gong being "truth, benevolence, tolerance" appears in almost every scholarly work on that group. This is not some fringe fact. Note also that there are a number of major academic books and papers by established scholars about the beliefs of Falun Gong, which convey opposite ideas to those of this scholar, in her conference paper (i.e. not a peer reviewed document, but something presented to other scholars for comment prior to publication). Note also that there are certain disputes in the study of Falun Gong, where people with area expertise (Chinese language, background in Chinese religion etc.) look somewhat askance at folks like Heather Kavan, who does not speak Chinese, has no relevant background, and teaches speechwriting. She also gives interviews to Chinese agencies connected with the anti-Falun Gong security campaign in China, etc. I am not saying here that she can't be used, but I'm trying to convey some of the context at play. I wrote on the talk that I believe having some discussion of how FLG seeks to represent its beliefs would also be valid. I was reading through Noah Porter's celebrated ethnography the other day and he has a whole section on FLG discursive strategies. They have a whole lot of weird beliefs, but say that they are not central, and try to represent them in a manner that makes them most understandable to outsiders. All that, including the evasions, is worth being represented somewhere. But to use one dubious source in order to remove info about the central beliefs, reported in all the major scholarship, and instead say that they're just evasive tactics and members are taught to lie... well. That is the dispute about these pages in a nutshell.

It's indeed very difficult to have productive discussions when editors have such vastly different understandings of our shared enterprise here. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• For newbies like me, there were two arbitration cases: WP:AFLG (2007) + WP:ARBFG2 (2012). The log of 2020 discretionary sanctions is here where JzG and Guerillero have recorded sanctions. I see that I commented at Cleopatran Apocalypse's talk regarding a very bad aspersions issue where Bloodofox was said to have "repeatedly misrepresented sources". I guess we need to draw up a list of editors to topic ban and articles to watch. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Johnuniq, Cleopatran Apocalypse has <700 edits, so is not wise in our ways despite xyr long history here. As admins I think we being by setting expectations about neutrality and brevity of reports, and correct use of WP:BRD, de-escalation, consensus-forming and dispute resolution. This seems to me to be escalating beyond the objective merits of the complaints. Guy (help!) 08:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• With regard to "scrubbing", I found it important that the contentious reverts dealt with the 2nd paragraph in the lead and a full section at the top of the article. While policy does not say in which order the sections should be, I think it's odd that the first section of the article would be about political involvement and include long quotes from the LA Times and NBC News. Are the political positions of the The Epoch Times newspaper and the Shen Yun dance company such an important aspect of the FLG that they warrant a full 2nd paragraph in the lead? While this content should be in the article in some form, the diffs cited here mostly detail a disagreement about WP:DUEWEIGHT. --Pudeo (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Were placement the issue here, moving the material around would be no problem—that'd be a typical response on Wikipedia, of course. However, as the diffs display, what I and others experienced above was repeated, wholesale removal of any and all 'critical' media sources. Editors before me also experienced this in the sample diffs above (but simply moved on, rather than contest the matter further). :bloodofox: (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am willing to answer questions from the community about my interactions within the topic area and attempts to control the disruption through sanctions. Please ping me if you require me.

  I think my actions speak for just how contentious this topic area is. Placing most everyone involved in the article under a 0RR sanction and indef full protecting the article was not something I did lightly. As you can see at WP:AC/DS/Log#Falun Gong 2 various attempts have been made to keep the article from becoming a mud fight. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• This subject is frustrating as Hell. I think it needs a full ArbCom to sift and sort, and decide who needs TBANS and who needs CBANS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  What Binksternet said. We need to exclude the pro and anti POVers. They are WP:NOTHERE anyway. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Frankly, I agree with bloodofox, that this is going to require Scientology-level sanctions & enforcement to get an actual, factual set of articles established. I've been wary of even dipping my toes into this area because I've seen how fervent believers descend on any attempt to provide factual information they deem critical of the group. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Falun Gong topic area has seen major content battles over the years. The three major groups of involved editors are 1) pro-Falun Gong activists, 2) anti-Falun Gong activists, and 3) veteran editors who happen upon the conflict and try to sort out the problems. Bloodofox and myself are in the latter category, while BlueCanoe and Cleopatran Apocalypse are in group 1. Group 2 would have included PatCheng until he was recently blocked for socking. STSC would also have been counted in the group 3, having started the username 14 years ago, and getting extensively involved in other articles before making Falun Gong edits, but they were hounded off the Falun Gong topic by users from group 1 including Blue Canoe and Marvin 2009 (who is now topic banned for pro-Falun Gong activism.) If group 1 and group 2 were allowed to edit freely, the article would be a constant war of reversions and non-neutral additions. What is needed is for the article to be developed by veteran editors from group 3, who are impartial and will attempt to frame the topic neutrally. Bloodofox should develop a version of the article in userspace, and we can have a Request for Comment to see whether that version should replace the current contentious one. And all editors in the groups 1 and 2 should have 0RR restrictions placed as soon as they are identified by their behavior. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hum, this comment by STSC was quite chilling and I'm not surprised he was topic-banned. --Pudeo (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, my. Yes, that is egregious, and it would put STSC into the second group, if not banned or blocked. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think those three groups just about sum it up. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Since this has gathered some admin attention and results in admin action by Guerillero already, I just wanted to mention that I did plan to eventually file AE reports and ask a topic ban for some editors who appear to have a conflict of interest about the topic. —PaleoNeonate – 17:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Please do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I would also be interested in an AE report --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I made the mistake of getting involved in the FG space within the last year, I say mistake because its by far the most acrimonious space I’ve ever come across and I’m familiar with the Taiwan-China and Israeli-Arab conflict spaces so I thought I had seen acrimony, disruption, IPs, and SPAs but it was nothing like the FG space. There is a clique of long term editors/gatekeepers who appear to have COI issues with FG, as far as I can tell they’ve never been successfully challenged and most editors will simply leave the FG space after encountering them rather than endure their assault. This discussion is a step in the right direction but dealing solely with TheBlueCanoe won’t solve the problem. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

[Not sure if I should comment here or in the thread above? Here's my read on the situation, anyway].

TL;DR: I believe this should go to ArbCom.

• I've been editing this topic for several years. I'm very familiar with the scholarly literature, and my interest has been in trying to ensure that the page is not overtaken by ideological agendas, and that the content conforms to Wikipedia's content policies.

• Bloodofox, Horse Eye Jack, Binksternet, and others began editing this article since April or May of this year. Since then, the Falun Gong pages have been the site of endless and apparently intractable edit wars involving at least a dozen editors.

• These users do not appear to have even an elementary level of understanding of Falun Gong. In the case of Bloodofox, his view of this topic seems to be based almost entirely on relatively news coverage in left-liberal news publications (since the Trump election, really). While the perspective offered in these news stories is important, it is also just one perspective within an expansive and varied body of academic literature.

• These editors treat the page as an ideological battleground. Binksternet, for instance, removes references to Falun Gong's core moral teachings, making some remarkable claims and misrepresenting sources along the way.[44][45][46][47][48] Bloodofox and others have inserting lengthy block quotes from recent news articles haphazardly on the page, with no regard for coherent narrative structure, due weight, or balance, and a tendency to stretch the sources to support claims that are not directly made. They have edited the lede to highlight apparent controversies that would appear extremely marginal in relation to the broader topic Falun Gong. For instance, the lede section they prefer does not include any mention of Falun Gong's core religious tenets, but it does tell us what a Falun Gong-affiliated dance troupe thinks about the theory of evolution. Etc.

• In other words, there are legitimate questions of Neutrality and Due Weight in how these news sources are presented on the page, as User:Pudeo noted. My edits, cited above by Bloodofox, were never aimed at "scrubbing" or "censoring" the article, but about ensuring a neutral and proportional representation, particularly in the lede section. I always explained my rationale on the talk page. However....

• The conflict is intractable because talk page discussions are impossible: every attempt to discuss content questions is quickly derailed by personal attacks, soapboxing, strawmaning opponents' arguments, and demands to stop discussing content (e.g. [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]

• Bloodofox is not the only offender, but certainly the worst: he personalizes every content dispute with accusations of "scrubbing" or "censorship," and insinuations that anyone who disagrees with them is an SPA, is acting in bad faith, or is an agent of Falun Gong. Discourse is impossible in this environment. (e.g. Bloodofox: [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] Horse Eye Jack: [81][82][83][84]

[85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93]

• For an example of how this dynamic plays out, read this recent talk page discussion[94], which is sadly typical. I describe in detail why I edited the lede section as I did, and invite other editors to discuss the content. Both Binksternet and Bloodofox state their intention not to discuss the issues, personalize the dispute, and edit war back to their preferred version.

• Some of the editors here have, in addition to the foregoing, also engaged in conduct that might reasonably be interpreted as harassment and hounding. This seems like an attempt to drive their perceived ideological opponents off the page. But I will save my evidence of that for ArbCom or AE.

So, again, the issues here are significant and intractable. It's a massive pain, but I believe this needs to go to ArbCom. When this case was filed I was preparing a request for Arbitration, but a recommendation from uninvolved editors here might make the case stronger. TheBlueCanoe 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You're aware, I'm sure, regarding your comment about "left-liberal news publications", that "Reality has a well known liberal bias". It's almost as if the liberal media wish to reveal the truth. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I liked the way a documentary called this: "the gospel of the liberal media". —PaleoNeonate – 23:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ivan Humphrey

I am concerned with the behaviour of user:Ivan Humphrey – edit warring and uncommunicativeness. They came to my attention when they marked Analogical models as American spelling. I reverted this as it was not an exclusively American subject and some British spellings are found on the page. I then noted that the user had been on a bit of a spree with this and reverted a few more (admittedly, some of them might have been more justifiable – one generated a discussion at Talk:Analog computer#ENGVAR). I stopped reverting at that point and requested the user explain the criteria they were using [95]. There has been no response to this request, other than the user edit warring the notices back in to some articles [96][97][98]. This was done with Twinkle rollback without using an edit summary, contrary to both WP:Rollback and WP:Twinkle. I suggest the user is banned from using Twinkle for rollback as they are clearly misusing it and not acknowledging that. SpinningSpark 12:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Come on, pal. I just add AmE template in articles/titles strongly use AmE spelling, such as 'analog', color, etc. Ivan Humphrey (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not about whether you were right or wrong in assigning those articles to American English. It is about your edit warring and misuse of rollback. SpinningSpark 16:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ivan Humphrey: Hmmm. I'm afraid your response does not engender confidence. Could you please elaborate on your use of TWINKLE/rollback? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well Television has been tagged a American English on the talk page for over 4 years now, so the reversion of the tag being added to the main article was unwarranted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to de-rollback Ivan Humphrey. Lack of accountability. (That does not just apply to ADMINS when admin-type pow er tools are misused.) Is there a mechanism to de-TWINKLE as well, or just ban its use. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It used to be possible to forcibly remove it in the days when it was added as code to the user's js page, but not sure that that can be done now its a gadget. Possibly something clever in js can be done on the user's Twinkle preferences page, but probably not worth the effort. SpinningSpark 23:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

197.83.246.23 trying to impose poorly sourced fan theory (i.e. fringe) and making disruptive edits questioning widely held views from reliable sources

197.83.246.23 (or 197.86.143.179, 197.86.143.126, 197.86.143.140, etc.) has been trying to impose a fan theory at The Master (Doctor Who) diff and The Monk (Doctor Who) diff plus some other articles (diff and diff). When the differences between primary sources and secondary sources as well as the idea of due weight in regards to neutral point of view are explained, they respond with indifference diff or point-y edits diff. Also, unwilling to understand due weight diff and fringe. DonQuixote (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not it at all, and DonQuixote knows that. Actually, there are multiple issues here.

First, the "fan theory" is reliably sourced. It was inserted to try and give some NPOV to the articles.

More importantly, the The Monk *Doctor Who) article is a complete mess. The problem with this particular article is that there are multiple, mutually contradictory, accounts as to the nature of this fictional character. And each one has some sort of RS to back it up. DonQuixote(and another editor who appears as if on demand) are trying to forcibly push ONE of these latter-day interpretations as the "one correct version". The irony is that DonQuixote has repeatedly stated that "all viewpoints must be shown", and accusing me of being the one trying to push one POV version. DonQuixote is now upset because I moved a sourced sentence written in an unofficial guidebook approximately thirty years after the character appeared on tv from out of the introductory paragraph to further down the page.

In short, I had thought that everyone involved had agreed that only the information relating to the actual character, the creation of said character, and the relevant reliable sources relating to the television appearances should be in the introduction. And then all other information from subsequent dates be placed on the article, but not in the introduction. And none of these subsequent, contradictory, accounts should be given precedence over any of the others. Yet DonQuixote is pushing for ONE account to be made out to be "correct", even blanking valid sourced information. I did not remove anything. In fact, I added information, and clarified certain things to try and attempt to keep the NPOV status of the article intact.

Yet DonQuixote seems to be heavily invested in pushing ONE latter-day version of the character as the "correct" one, to the detriment of ALL other interpretations, all of which are reliably sourced, even attempting to make deceptive edits to the article. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't want to start a discussion here, as it's not going to be constructive, but two points

It was inserted to try and give some NPOV to the articles.

see WP:false balance

there are multiple, mutually contradictory, accounts as to the nature of this fictional character.

The character has appeared in multiple media written by multiple authors--so that explains that.

DonQuixote (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you want to start a discussion? After all, you were the one who reported another editor for 'disruptive behaviour'. yet, when the other editor tries to explain the situation, you now have no interest in commenting on the "incident" that you yourself reported?

In a nutshell, there is a fictitious character who appeared in Doctor Who on television in the 1960's. And, ever since different people in different media, over more than 40 years, have defined and written about that character in a variety of different ways. To the point where there are now multiple contradictory, and utterly irreconcilable, versions of the character in different narratives. And, each mutually distinct version has reliable sources stating that that version is the "one real version". What DonQuixote wants is for his preferred version to be the focus of the article, even ONLY using one type of "reliable source" in the introduction. And then for EVERYTHING ELSE to be buried in the article, sometimes being no more than a link here or there. He has also blanked reliably sourced information from the article if it contradicts with his preferred interpretation. And, he has phrased certain sections in an unsourced, deceptive manner, which would make a reader of said article get a very different understanding of issues from what the reality is.

All I have attempted to do is make the article neutral, and not to give preference to one conflicting version of said fictitious character of another. And that is the issue. To be blunt, DonQuixote has stated his preference for Big Finish Audios and their ONE adaptation over all else. And DonQuixote wishes to make the "Big Finish version" the "one true version" to the exclusion of all else. Well, he has no problem with everything else being there, just not in the lead the way the Big Finish information is. And maybe a sentence or two, as opposed to the rambling summaries of in-universe Big Finish storylines. If my objecting to that is a mistake, then I apologise. If note, then I suggest other editors look at this article, and try to clean it up, and remove some of the fanboy nonsense from it. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmkwfrance

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

---

Hmkwfrance has been editing for a few months and has mostly focused on Dawoodi Bohras and related articles, particularly people involved with that group. They've got significant issues around using sources, understanding what is a reliable source, understanding notability and recently, copy-paste from sources. They've been previously blocked on Commons for copyright issues after uploading multiple images and claiming as "own work". Most of the articles they've created have been moved to draft space, but today started recreating them in article space Qasim Hakimuddin vs draft:Qasim Hakimuddin, Ammar Jamaluddin vs Draft:Ammar Jamaluddin. Every single article they've created has had significant issues, even the new ones having basic sourcing problems like dates of birth. They're turning into a major time-sink. I'd like some outside review on this. I'd like to see them allowed only to create new article via draft at a minimum. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. It's time for the user to assure us they are able to absorb WP:COPYVIO so as to self-correct. El_C 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User Reinthal: 3RR breach and persistent harassment

Sadly I have to report the unacceptable editing of user:Reinthal today.

S/he has a view that a citation published in the Mail on Sunday and mailonline, concerning the TV series World on Fire (TV series) is acceptable, whereas I do not, the Daily Mail and Mailonline both having been identified as unreliable sources by multiple RFCs.

S/he is in breach of WP:3RR by having reverted this[99] edit to the article four times within seven hours[100][101][102][103]

I reverted three times, on the basis that WP policy on the reliability of the Mail and mailonline is perfectly clear, but stopped after three in line with 3RR. Such that his version of the article is currently live.

Given the similarity of the previous edit, it is possible that user:122.150.83.215 is a sock puppet of this user.

Despite having ended the edit war myself, he (or she) posted warnings on my talk page both about warring and that I was in breach of 3RR[104]. I have pointed out that 3RR prohibits more than three reversions[105] and also that s/he shouldn’t be trying to force edits as to what appears on my own talk page[106] but he has now SEVEN TIMES tried to bully me by reposting his/her factually inaccurate warnings onto my talk page, in clear breach of policy that gives users the right to decide the content of their own talk pages. Here are the seven edits[107][108][109][110][111][112][113] Edit warring another user’s talk page so persistently is clear bullying and harassment, contrary to WP policy. (Update, now TEN identical edits to my talk page warning me of a policy I haven’t broken in the first place)

It isn’t acceptable that another editor should try to force content onto my own talk page, but I have given up removing his inaccurate statements as he is clearly trying to intimidate me my immediately restoring his warnings each time I try to remove them from my page. I would ask for intervention to bring his unnecessarily aggressive and false accusations to an end. MapReader (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) WP:RSPDM provides up-to-date links to discussions and conclusions as to the usability of The Daily Mail and related sites as sources. Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw Ponyo has blocked them for 72 hours for the repeated posting on your talk page (including after I explained to them that WP:BLANKING allows you to remove the warning). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that needed to stop.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Why he didn’t go check 3RR and see that I only reverted him the three times and then left his edit live, I don’t know. MapReader (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/81.101.15.25

This user has only just come off a two-week block and has already resumed disruptive editing – mainly going from one BLP to the next changing "English" to "British" (example). Please could someone uninvolved re-block? SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Without wishing to defend the editing behaviour, having taken a look at this page and seeing that the infobox describes him as a British citizen, isn’t the underlying edit actually reasonable? MapReader (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Question, since he wasn't born in England, how is he English? And British is a nationality technically, not English. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Which was also my thought. British citizenship is a verifiable fact. Englishness is rather more tricky - whilst most people born in England might be considered English, there is cross-border traffic (easy for someone living in North Wales to be born in Chester, for example), and of course plenty of Brits have parents from different of the constituent nations. I have no problem with someone of obviously Scottish heritage being described as Scottish rather than British, but as a general rule British is the nationality, not English. MapReader (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to link to this edit (I got the two "R. Grants" mixed up ...), which I think provides a clearer example. On their talk page, the user was pointed to this guidance but doesn't seem to have taken it on board, and rapid-fire editing to enforce a particular label is disruptive. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Had he halted to discuss instead of insisting that he was going to continue, he would not be currently blocked but he has not participated in any consensus building and has the net yield as a POV warrior. The lack of a block appeal but the return to the same behavior is not a good sign. Blocked one month.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not specific to this IP, but a general comment. WP:UKNATIONALS is worthwhile reading on this question. I don't agree that British is the default - we should look for what the sources say, and what the subject says about themselves. Changing an existing article to reflect one's own personal preference, without reference to sources or discussion, strikes me as inherently disruptive. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

An instance of racial harassment / attack?

This is my first posting to an admin noticeboard so please be patient if this is in any way a violation of protocol.

Recently I was targeted as "a black wikipedian, of course" by an IP user here: [114] Is this an instance of racial harassment or attack warranting further action beyond the warning for derogatory language which I left on the IP's talk page? Further, should I take it upon myself to delete it or should I wait for an admin to scrub it completely from the page history? I wouldn't want to overreact but I am also concerned that a message like this, full of shouting and unfounded accusations of "black hate", be allowed to remain and possibly alienate editors of color. Note that I had engaged with this IP range on that talk page in the past, but this latest screed represents a marked escalation. (Please note too that I left a similar question at User_talk:Ian.thomson yesterday. I am not trying to forum shop here, just trying to be proactive about addressing the issue ASAP.)

Many thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Generalrelative:, you should be commended for your restraint, and your choice to open an ANI discussion seems perfectly proper to me. It would be for an admin to decide, but the talk page comment added by the IP could qualify for "revision deletion," or scrubbing. There is no uniform policy on removing personal attacks, but out of boldness I have done so in this case. Anyone who feels strongly against that action is free to revert. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Bloody Hell! Revdel'd-- hate speech. Anon blocked one week- hate speech. Zero tolerance. @Generalrelative: If such recurs, feel free to contact me directly and post here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Generalrelative (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And if Deepfriedokra is not around, feel free to ask me for help - racist attacks like that are intolerable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Any further action possible? Leaving a strong warning to the IP owner? Blocking this IP from doing any edits for, say, the coming month? Jnyssen (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Boing! said Zebedee You might want to look at a range block? The specific IP that DFO blocked only edited once, it seems clear from the talk page conversation above that the same person was editing from a range of IPs. The /64 might do it? I'm on mobile, so can't easily investigate, and am a bit of an amateur at IP ranges, but it would be worth looking at. GirthSummit _(blether) 04:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The /56 has some incivil trollish edits --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

which also show up in the /64. IMA makea rangeblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 2 weeks to avoid collateral damage. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Bastun

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

Bastun needs to be topic banned from J. K. Rowling and from other BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. This is because of a persistent, ongoing issue involving WP:BLP violations because of Bastun's extremely negative feelings about Rowling, and their advocacy on the subject of transgender resulting in tendentious editing, which involves rejection of WP:NPOV, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (IDHT) behavior, and personal attacks.

Note that on 4 July 2019, they were given a DS (discretionary sanctions) alert for BLP: [115]

• Here they added material claiming some signatories saying they would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing it. None of the given sources support this BLP violation. I removed it. Bastun re-added it with another source that does not verify it. I took it to the talk page (my 17:34, 27 July 2020 comment). Five editors including myself agreed that criticism not specifically about Rowling should be removed. I later re-remove it on these grounds and am reverted by Bastun, who falsely claims that it's referenced material and No consensus on removal - clear IDHT. They then adjusted the statement to refer only to Boylan. This is again a BLP violation, since she never said she 'would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing'. [116] Bastun claimed on the talk page that they were Restoring per several editors including myself. [117] This is false. No other editors supported their material.

• The addition about Rowling's signing of the Harper's Letter was proposed by someone else at this discussion on the talk page. Bastun responds, Would this paragraph include analysis of, one the one hand, signing a letter claiming to support free speech, and on the other hand, suing a children's website that published opinions critical of her? Czello rightly points out, Depends, is this analysis covered in any reliable sources? If not us doing that would be WP:SYNTH. Then Bastun turns on a dime to instead argue, Oh, I'm aware of the policy. But you raise a good point. Would the signing of an open letter, where apparently the signatory did not actually stand over the content, be a case of WP:UNDUE? Guy Macon replies, Not covering the open letter -- assuming that it otherwise would be included -- because you don't like her behavior in ther areas would be a violation of WP:NPOV. It would also be WP:OR... We clearly see in this exchange Bastun's anti-Rowling bias and willingness to tendentiously argue whatever it takes for the sake of a POV.

• I then added the material about the open letter. Even though Bastun adds sourced material about people disagreeing with Rowling, they removed the sourced material about Rowling signing the Harper's Letter about open debate with 150 others, claiming "undue", even though this latter incident got more coverage in sources and even has its own Wikipedia article. This is a tendentious double standard. They claimed on the talk page, Removed. Per WP:UNDUE. It really is. And considering the other material you've previously removed on the same grounds, I'm assuming you're well familiar with the policy. Notnews, 10-year-rule, etc. [118] This is a case of WP:POINTiness. I discussed it on the talk page and again, consensus was to include.

• Because I used Reuters in the RfC as an example and said elsewhere it was a better source to show significance than the entertainment/gossip press per WP:NOTNEWS, Bastun mocks me repeatedly about it: Even Reuters has covered this. Imagine! Reuters! :sarcasm: [119] Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! [120] it's even used in a Reuters explainer! Reuters - imagine! [121]

• Making the same attack on me on two different pages. [122][123] They say, you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. That goes to show they never actually read WP:NOTNEWS despite me linking to it several times. They then go on to attack, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. I responded, warning them not to attack me and not accusing them back of serious POV issues - although I certainly am now, in the proper forum for that.

• Bastun using the talk page as a soapbox/forum to complain about Rowling, again revealing their strong bias: It's Maud Flanders levels of "Think of the children!" and - just personal opinion now - points to her poor writing ability (anyone can get lucky, and every generation gets a Hero's journey retelling.) [124] Yes. She's a self-admitted TERF. [125] (She did not say that, and the label TERF is not to be thrown around casually for BLPs. [126])

• Autumnking2012 stated on the talk page, I am endeavoring to avoid the toxicity of this talk page as much as possible. Why is the talk page toxic? I submit - and Autumnking2012 may be willing to comment - that it is mainly because of Bastun's tendentious behavior, some of which is detailed above. I certainly consider it toxic for that reason.

• At their talk page, regarding another BLP in June, Girth Summit had to admonish Bastun about not engaging in personal comments. Bastun repeatedly and falsely called Lilipo25 a WP:SPA, as well as falsely claiming Lilipo25 said anything about SJWs/social justice warriors.

• They claimed that voting in my own RfC was scandalous: where one of the options presented by the person who drafted the RFC is shot down by that person. How odd. Almost as if a certain conclusion was desired and being orchestrated... They added notifications to the two pages about the RfC that were non-neutral, while ironically and baselessly claiming with a weaselly some editors have expressed concern that the RfC was non-neutral. [127][128]

There is no shortage of helpful editors who seek to follow NPOV on these pages, adding positive and negative material. Bastun is acting as an obstacle and actively drives good editors away. I have therefore come here to seek a topic ban from BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds a bit hard to enforce, perhaps broaden the scope to BLPs in general? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Note: DS alerts are only good for a year. I've notified them of the gender-related and BLP sanctions. ---22:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I support this proposal. Bastun has a long history of posting negatively-biased material on BLP pages about those who have expressed gender critical views and reverting all attempts to make the pages WP:NPOV. Attempts to discuss edits on the Talk page are futile; even when an RFC has just begun, Bastun will simply refuse to wait for discussion and continue reverting to the biased changes they want in the article and declare it consensus. In addition, they routinely revert edits that remove unsourced, defamatory claims in BLP articles of subjects who have criticised transgender activism, often with sarcastic edit notes [129].

An example of Bastun reverting attempts to remove negatively-biased content is on the Graham Linehan page. The RFC that can be found on the Linehan Talk Page followed numerous attempts by other editors to change Bastun's biased section heading "Antitransgender activism", only to be immediately reverted by Bastun. Some of the times this occurred include (but are not limited to):

1. April 2019, changed to "Transgender Issues" by Onetwothreeip, reverted by Bastun [130]
2. April 2019, Bring back Daz Sampson removed the section altogether and summarized and integrated the information into an existing section, reverted by Bastun [131]
3. August 2019, changed to "Pro-feminist ally activism by Planted Kiss, reverted by Bastun [132]
4. August 2019, changed to "Activism" by Forty 4, reverted by Bastun [133]
5. October 2019 changed to "Gender critical activism" by an IP, reverted by Bastun [134]
6. April 2020 changed to "Transgender Controversy" by me, reverted by Bastun [135]

While the RFC on the subject heading was still underway in June 2020, Bastun once again reverted it to "Antitransgender activism" [136] and although no consensus approving that was reached, it remains in the article as everyone eventually just gave up trying to improve it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I support the proposal. I noted before (in a recent BLP noticeboard discussion about Rowling) that I have purposely been keeping out of the Rowling stuff. But having taken the time to look over all of this (that's a lot of diffs to analyze), I must agree that Bastun is a serious problem in this area. A topic ban appears to be needed. If not that, then some sort of other sanction. This can't be allowed to continue. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. After viewing the diffs provided by Crossroads and User:Lilipo25, it would be in the best interest of the Wikipedia community and its readers if User:Bastun was topic banned. Some people don't pay attention to WP:BLP, and other Wikipedia policies, until their arrogance pushes the envelope off a cliff. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon's analysis

I am withdrawing my analysis. It was intended for respondents to say things like "edit N was out of line." Instead it has become one more battleground. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I just put together a couple of timelines. Sorry for this being long. The only substantive change between the 16:25, 24 July 2020 revision and the latest revision as of 09:01, 28 July 2020 is the addition of a "Open letter on justice and open debate" section.[137] During this period there was a lot of talk page discussion here: Freedom of speech#Freedom of speech Freedom of speech#Bias in section "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate" I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise: 16:29, 24 July: Crossroads adds section.[138] 17:34, 24 July 2020 Bastun reverts.[139] 00:25, 26 July 2020: Crossroads adds a different version.[140] ("Re-add Harper's Letter, with adjustments, per agreement on talk page.") 11:32, 26 July 2020 Bastun adds to the section.[141] 18:39, 26 July: Crossroads removes a smaller portion.[142] 05:32, 28 July 2020 Crossroads removes a section[143] ("Removing stuff not about Rowling per 5 editors including myself on the talk page.") 08:51, 28 July 2020 Bastun reverts[144] ("Restore referenced material. No consensus on removal. Discuss on talk.") Bastun's talk page comment as of 08:50, 28 July[145] included these words: "And I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning. (By my count it was 10 hours) Looks like I need to create another timeline: 13:30, 26 July: IP 2a02...6582 opens section "‎Bias in section 'A Letter on Justice and Open Debate' "[146] 14:23, 26 July: Bilorv says keep.[147] 14:25, 26 July: Bastun says keep.[148] 15:00, 26 July: 2a02...6582 says remove.[149] 17:21 26 July: Ward20 says modify and expand.[150] 18:37, 26 July: Bastun agrees with expansion.[151] 18:53, 26 July 2020: Crossroads mentions his 18:39, 26 July[152] edit that removed a smaller portion, then writes "Lastly, as a reminder to all, WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, inconsistent application of policy to promote a POV, antipathy-motivated WP:BLP violations on any Wikipedia page, and/or toxicity are all actionable at ANI."[153] 20:20, 26 July: (I am going to disregard this one. Nothing that is in The Daily Mail can be trusted for any purpose. The poster later retracted the comment for the same reason.) 21:23, 26 July: Ward20 comments. Can't tell it it supports keeping or removing.[154] 09:59, 27 July: Bastun continues arguing his position. [155] 17:34, 27 July: Crossroads continues arguing his position, pings Bilorv, Czello. Guy Macon, Autumnking2012, Bodney, and Ward20.[156] 17:44, 27 July: Guy Macon says remove any criticism of the letter that does not mention Rowling by name.[157] 17:49, 27 July: Crossroads agrees.[158] 18:44, 27 July: Czello agrees.[159] 18:56, 27 July: Ward20 agrees. [160] 19:33, 27 July: Autumnking2012 agrees.[161] 05:32, 28 July: Crossroads removes. See timeline above. 08:50, 28 July: Bastun posts his "I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning." comment, says he is "Restoring per several editors including myself. Not least because some of the removal is directly related to Rowling."[162] 08:51, 28 July: Bastun reverts. See timeline above. 08:58, 28 July: Ward20 makes thoughtful comments too hard to summarize. Please read the diff.[163] 09:14, 28 July: Bastun agrees with Ward20.[164] 05:32, 28 July: Crossroads removes a section[165] ("Removing stuff not about Rowling per 5 editors including myself on the talk page.") 08:51, 28 July: Bastun reverts[166] ("Restore referenced material. No consensus on removal. Discuss on talk.") Questions: Is the claim "some of the removal is directly related to Rowling" true of edit [167]? Was ten hours after several editors agreed too soon to make the edit? My conclusions: No evidence of wrongdoing that would justify a topic ban for Bastun alone. A one month topic ban for Bastun and Crossroads might be worth considering. Restoring the 16:25, 24 July 2020 revision, rolling back in the 50,000 to 60,000 correction, and fully protecting the article for a month is also worth considering. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Acting like I am equally at fault? As for "I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring", that was right after an/maybe more than one (I don't remember) SPA had turned up, added a bunch of stuff, edit warred, and (one of them) got blocked. I never thought that strict formality we had been doing was meant to be permanent (indeed, it really isn't standard Wikipedia procedure) and I thought maybe you had stopped watching. And you ignored all the problems I pointed to above in favor of focusing on the "when" of edits. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And your first timeline is extremely misleading. You begin, I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise, and then state, 16:29, 24 July: Crossroads adds section. But I did not do that out of the blue; it was based on the 2 comments that already existed in support of doing so (and no comments rejecting it) in this section of the talk page: Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#Freedom of speech. Further down that timeline, you say, 00:25, 26 July 2020: Crossroads adds a different version. But this again was after further discussion on Talk in that section I just linked to. I was making every effort to engage on Talk and follow WP:BRD. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I implied that you were equally at fault. I thought that the timeline spoke for itself. I think it is fair to say that

[A] the first edit I put in the timeline was the first edit in the dispute (which in itself says nothing about whether it was good or bad, for or against consensus), Being first is simply a fact. It doesn't imply anything. There is no implication that the first edit in the dispute was in any way wrong. Many times it is the second edit where you start to see a problem. occasionally it is the seventh.

[B] When I say "I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise", I am saying the you made an edit when you knew that someone would disagree and most likely revert. No matter how tendentious the revert, that's how edit wars start. What you should have done is post something like this on the talk page: "Bastun, by my count X number of editors agree with A, and Y number of editors agree with B. Can we agree to change it to A without edit warring?" Just going ahead and making what looks like a good edit to you is usually fine, but when a topic is generating a lot of strong feelings and the page has recently been protected because of edit warring, you really need to at least try to get everyone to agree before making the edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You implied I was equally at fault by proposing equal sanctions for me and for Bastun. And I didn't think that Bastun or anyone would necessarily be tendentious enough to revert. The order people normally follow is WP:BRD. Discussion does not have to come first, although there had been discussion. And there is no need to go to extreme lengths on Talk to try to get unanimity of some kind first. Consensus is not unanimity. And lone editors do not have infinite veto power over the larger group. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I've thoroughly analyzed the matter, and that includes Lilipo25's analysis above, and I really can't see that Crossroads has done anything wrong here. He's an editor who staunchly follows the rules, including in this case. I see that he's had to put up with a lot regarding Bastun, who has been significantly disruptive in this area. Crossroads has been one of the voices of reason at these difficult articles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Did I say that Crossroads did anything wrong here? Did I say that Bastun did anything wrong here? Or did I just post a timeline? I have my opinions about who is mostly at fault here, but I was careful not to express those opinions. As for my advice, Wikipedia administrators only have a few options t deal with a page where edit wars keep breaking out. They can stop one or more editors from editing Wikipedia (blocking). They can stop one or mare editors from editing a certain page or on a certain topic (topic ban) or they can stop everybody from editing the age (full protection). They can identify when a policy or guideline is being violated and use warnings and blocks to stop that behavior. What Adminisrators are not allowed to do is to decide who is right and who is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into some tit for tat with you. You implied that Crossroads did wrong, which is why Crossroads took offense. I'm sure he can clarify his feelings on that. And, yes, admins decide that editors are in the wrong all the damn time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

My report has little to do with edit warring. The issue is POV-motivated tendentious editing. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators decide that editors are in the wrong all the time. As in "the editors conduct was wrong." They are not allowed to decide that editors are wrong. As in "issuing decisions on content disputes". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semantics. I can ping multiple admins right now who would state, "Yep, Flyer is correct. As seen on ANI and elsewhere on Wikipedia, admins decide that editors are in the wrong all the damn time." But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Support. I really regret to say that I'd support the topic ban as OP suggested. I wish it wouldn't have come to this but I fear bias has crept through to the point of tendentious editing. — Czello 08:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I've been pinged above, so just wanted to make a quick comment to say that I've seen this thread, but will be on mobile until tomorrow at the earliest - I would need to be at a computer to read through these diffs properly. I have been aware of some issues in this subject area in recent months, but will reserve judgment on this particular report until I've had chance to investigate properly. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment re Crossroads. Personal agendas have been a persistent problem in the editing of all LGBT-related articles. Editor Bastun has been brought to ANI after the whack-a-moling of their edits have exhausted those who are here for the promotion of encyclopedic values, and not for the manipulation of information, censorship of information, and POV belligerence. Crossroads' history as an editor is a completely different universe than that of this problematic editor. There is no comparison. To conclude that topic-banning him should also be considered is to say that Crossroads is on the same level as Bastun. That is utter rubbish ... and a back-handed intimidation tactic. An attempt to punish Crossroads for possessing the boldness and fearlessness to tackle a problematic editor and to call them out, is simply an attack against any editor who has the brass to do what is best for Wikipedia and the general public that it serves. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Question of Scope

The evidence-based discussion here has been largely confined to the (highly sensitive) J.K. Rowling article, but those seeking sanctions have suggested a much broader scope for a topic-ban. Is there evidence from any other page suggesting that problems extend beyond the single page? Newimpartial (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

31.208.20.48

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

I first noticed this IP's suspicious behavior after they made their first edits to The Fandom over an hour after I had created it. After looking through their contributions, this appears to be a long-term problem, with various disruptive violations of WP:ELNO and WP:REDNOT. User has refused to discuss. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

23.120.104.213

The editor using the IP 23.120.104.213 removed description (here of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an antisemitic forgery with an edit summary opinion language. This is an encyclopedia not a jewish propaganda site on the article Nesta Helen Webster. The user also vandalised Whiteness studies to change the lead sentence here to begin Whiteness studies is the racist study of the imaginary structures that produce white privilege to make excuses for the poor performance and inherent intellectual abilities of minorities. The rest of the IP's edits consist of quickly-reverted unsourced additions to BLPs identifying their families as Jewish.

It feels pretty clear that the editor is single-purpose, tendentious, racist and antisemitic. (Apologies if I've reported this on the wrong board!) Ralbegen (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)