Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Baprow (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 18 October 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Battleground behaviour from Graywalls not abating

    I first interacted with Graywalls when they AFD'd the Civic Media Center library. I was alerted to the discussion since it was on my watchlist, I frequently edit articles about infoshops, social centres and squatting movements. I noticed Graywalls was exhibiting battleground behaviour, jumping on every response. We then met on Template:Squatting in the United States and ABC No Rio. At the latter Graywalls was deleting a "see also" section which had become sprawling, I offered a compromise and was reverted. We then discussed and I was not impressed with their appeal to an imagined consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proper_use_of_SEE_ALSO. Graywalls used the term BS which I took to mean "bullshit" and I queried why they would use it.

    Graywalls then popped up at Squatting, making bold edits such as adding "Original research" and "Unreliable sources" to the top of the article without specifying what needed improving. I reverted and asked for clarification on which of the 130+ sources they were referring to. The talkpage debate became acrimonious since Graywalls would link to a guideline, I would reply with my interpretation, then Graywalls would launch into incomprehensible ranting so the debate would grind to a halt, then the BRD cycle would begin again. They were also throwing around terms such as bullshit, garbage, junk which I do not feel are conducive to a cordial debate.

    Overall I found it hard to have a reasonable conversation and started to doubt that Graywalls is here to improve the encylopedia. I certainly lost faith on this edit, where Graywalls reverted me and took out the inbetween edits I had made. I was cross about my edits being carelessly discarded so I said "redo edits trashed by a bad revert, see talk Talk:Squatting#Improving_the_page", Graywalls gave what I thought was a grating apology, then seemed to get angry about my edit summary later. They even came to the brink of 3RR on a talkpage discussion about article rating!? I also started to notice that Graywalls was tracking my edits, for example popping up at Squat Milada.

    Which brings us to today. After i have disengaged from Graywalls for five days, I see that Graywalls has now popped up at Squatting in the Netherlands, saying "search on "indymedia.nl" from the WP:RSP Independent Media Center brought me to this" - funny how Graywalls decided to start with that article as opposed to all the others in the list, especially since I have been editing it these last few days as part of a GA nomination. You could say it's a remarkable coincidence.

    Graywalls has also reverted my edit on Dutch squatting ban, saying "(removing indymedia per WP:RSP and RS/N Oct. 2020)". This despite the only person to respond to my question about this specific source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Indymedia actually saying "However, being generally unreliable doesn't prevent it from being cited alongside reliable sources when it contains primary source evidence, such as photographs, where editors have determined that this is useful". Meanwhile, Graywalls had contributed to the debate there by saying "I saw a dog do its business inside a Walmart a while back".

    To sum up, I feel that Graywalls is hounding my edits and probably editing not sober, as the replies tend to become incoherent as the day goes on. I am happy to collaborate to improve pages but this now becoming difficult. I have followed the dispute resolution steps and disengaged completely with Graywalls since October 4. Unfortunately their battleground behaviour continues to the point that I feel my edits are being hounded. I am disappointed to have to come here instead of spending my time on content creation. I feel I have already tried to engage with Graywalls and work this through on various talkpages and at RSN, but it hasn't worked. I feel the trend to double down on a position instead of debating is all too common on wikipedia. Normally I can simply ignore and move on, but the acrimony is spread across different pages and shows no sign of abating. Mujinga (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Graywalls' infoshop AfDs are also worth nothing (see, in particular, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluestockings (bookstore)). Their nom-only AfD stats do not demonstrate a great correspondence with consensus, which suggests to me that Graywalls may be interested in nominating articles, particularly about left-leaning subjects, for non-notability related reasons. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga:, I understand BS was impolite and you will see I withdrew it, I was just getting quite frustrated in the back and forth. If I come upon articles and problem sources (such as unreliable sources Independent Media Center, blogspot, and similar), I sometimes search them via insource: search. "funny how Graywalls decided to start with that article as opposed to all the others in the list". Why yes I actually do, and you can check that yourself. I don't edit, or not edit because of you. I am making them because they contain anecdotes and personal accounts and share same type sources. I clarified that to you in talk comment you left. In Squatting in the Netherlands, I noticed it was being processed in GA review, so I actually took it to talk instead of removing it directly to minimize disruption. BTW, for those not aware; IMC includes domains such as Indymedia.org, Indymedia.nl, Indybay.org, Phillyimc.org. The variants are listed in the "Independent Media Center" in WP:RSP list. Graywalls (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @AleatoryPonderings:, I do nominate things in a cluster of similar things if they share similar issues. That was not a good nomination and I should have dug better for sources. I try to avoid these situations, and I do actually dig around deeper for sources after that happened. My decision to nom things are not based on left leaning or not. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hell_Shaking_Street_Preachers and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camilla_Tyldum.
    Graywalls (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga:, as I already retracted about an hour after it was originally said once you made me aware that it was offensive to you. I apologize if "BS" used in the context of my frustration with the argument. It's interesting that you keep insist on inserting sources like Squat.net, Indymedia.org even though you seem to be well aware of proper sourcing as can be seen here. It's rather contradictory that you're here using directed slight against me such as the unwarranted and untrue accusation that I am "not editing sober" when you came here partly to express your concerns about my language. In a different, but similar concerns about introducing contents based on questionable sources, you took to making attack on the other editor like calling their edits "vandalism" in your content dispute just as you labeled my edits "trashed" where it seems to be you were suggesting the onus was on them to prove the sources are not reliable source rather than on you to show sources are RS to be included. While you're not using swear words, you're making here directed attack such as accusing them of driving editors away. Graywalls (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from the issued raised by OP, there are WP:OR/WP:NPOV concerns about Graywalls's photo uploads. These were uploaded as "own work" and added to articles with the following captions and edit summaries:

    Is #8 a social distancing criticism? Additionally, (9) I'm scratching my head about adding a picture of an alarm system to Wapato Corrections Facility and (10) this image might be copyvio. Haven't gone through all the uploads or looked at other edits, but in looking through uploads, these ones jump out. Lev!vich 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Levivich:, I am not seeing how this relates to anything here. The mural picture was taken by myself and it is of relatively low resolution as part of the view of a park. No concerns about copyright have come up and if you believe that's a concern, I am happy to try to resolve it. And I don't know where you're going with the alarm panel. That seems like a content dispute. No issues have been raised before. #8 is visualizes the observations made by one of the newspapers; with my own picture since I happened to have one. "social distance criticism" where did that come from? Graywalls (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm finding the images especially problematic, and suggest NOTHERE problems. Behavior aside, there are NOT, OR, and POV problems with these images and their use. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP is about your editing in articles related to squatting (homelessness). Photos #1-5 are about homelessness, welfare, and drug addiction. #6-8 are other examples of OR/NPOV problems with photos. #8, "a number of workers close together in July 2020" is not really accurate (three might be a number, but "a number of" implies "many") and overly focuses on "close together", implying the company is ignoring social distancing protocols during the pandemic (July 2020). Otherwise, why would you write "close together" instead of just something like "a Hoffman construction site"? #9: why are we including an alarm system photo in an article about a facility? Seems like ... well, not a great idea to publicize that kind of information. #10: Unless you painted the mural, I believe it's copyvio for us to publish a photograph of it without the author's permission. Lev!vich 23:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't willfully put infringing images, but I took it down until it is figured out. Graywalls (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States (37521073921).jpg
    99. Tax cheat living in public housing
    Re #9: To be fair, Wapato Corrections Facility isn't a corrections facility. But all those captions are definitely problematic, to say the least. EEng 05:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True, a more accurate name would be "Wapato Mistakes Facility". Lev!vich 05:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me that they want to work for a tabloid rag or internet shaming site rather than an encyclopaedia. Very poor quality photos of zero encyclopaedic value. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would anyone think that these photos and captions are suitable for the encyclopedia? Number 4 just blows the mind, really. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng:, it was built as a jail and it was never put into use and this is what the building is notable for. I didn't name the article so that isn't my issue. Graywalls (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For those who don't know, Wapato Corrections Facility was built as a prison but is now a homeless shelter. (I'm still wondering why we have a picture of the alarm panel of a homeless shelter.) Lev!vich 16:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: - It looked rather interesting and someone who has never seen inside of such a building might find it cool too. Who knows if it's even in use. It's part of the original install back in early 2000s. The pictures weren't taken specifically for Wikipedia. If you take contents issues with that page, why haven't you taken it to the article's talk page? Graywalls (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there are ten of them. (Maybe more, I just stopped at ten.) Lev!vich 17:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just remove a copy and paste of the Belinda Johnson article into their user talk page, without attribution, which also put mainspace categories into their user talkpage. It should be noted that it was not Graywalls that pasted it into the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo update: Looks like all the images and captions above except #7 have been removed from the articles by various editors and they haven't been reinstated except at Union Pacific Railroad but I think it's stable for the moment. #10 was deleted from Commons for copyvio [1]. #3 and #4 are pending deletion at Commons. Lev!vich 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually pulled the mural photo from the article once it was made aware to me it might be infringing and I G7'd it over at Commons HERE and it was offline before it was deleted on buidhe's nomination. What are you trying to accomplish? Oh and I'm also noting that in a response to my question at Commons help desk, it was suggested that while it wouldn't be allowed on commons, it might be ok, as a low resolution picture uploaded only on English Wikipedia under fair use. It was a misunderstanding. Please assume good faith, thanks. Graywalls (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    More hounding

    OK so from reading the above, it seems other people also have problems with Graywalls. I had hoped that posting here would stop the battleground behaviour and I am staying disengaged, however they have pinged me back here twice intending to carry on an argument and exhibiting the very behaviour I wanted to highlight originally. The second time they linked to my edits from as far back as March 2019, supplying hard evidence that they are stalking my edits (I first interacted with Graywalls last month). Mujinga (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You started the dispute in this noticeboard to share your concerns about my my word selection "BS" which you felt was unseemly for which I retracted in an hour after posting and apologized, but you made it a personal attack of accusing me of editing "not sober" against no personal attack. It's hardly stalking that I go investigate how you interact with other editors during a content dispute sharing what I found here in light of the very dispute you initiated. Spreading rumors like this in article talk is improper. Article talk pages are not for airing personal allegations. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mujinga, while I understand that this place can be a frustrating experience at times, ...probably editing not sober is a snide personal attack, intended to weaken Graywall's editorial and personal reputation. Do you routinely include these kinds of inflammatory personal comments when interacting with editors? I agree that the photo captions constitute OR and need to be removed or the content adequately sourced. Other than that I feel that this AN/I is starting to 'pile on', using the opportunity to go shopping for evidence of 'problematic' editing rather than provide straightforward diffs showing obvious violation of policy in line with the original dispute, which was entirely related to behavioral and civility issues. For the evidence of that supplied so far, Graywalls has retracted and apologized. RandomGnome (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a bit disappointed that I ask for admin assistance here and basically all I get in direct answer is more nonsensical arguments from Graywalls, the very thing I wanted to avoid. RandomGnome you have under 200 edits so I'm simply not interested in these sort of wild questions from you. I'm happy to draw a line under this matter for now, but if I have to deal with anything like this crap - Talk:Squatting#Article_assessment - from Graywalls again I'll be back because I don't want to spend my editing time on wikipedia dealing with this time sink. Mujinga (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe WP:BOOMERANG for WP:civility and personal attack is in order for someone who come here to express concerns about language choice making contentious accusation like ...probably editing not sober and exhibiting uncivil and demeaning attitude directed at another user RandomGnome you have under 200 edits so I'm simply not interested in these sort of wild questions from you. in the very grievance they've started, in addition to casting aspersion in inappropriate place. It's absurd they're using expression like this crap - Talk:Squatting#Article_assessment when they're riled up over the way I said "BS" in the context I did. Graywalls (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User JPS1965

    WP:SPA account, edit-warring to include an unreferenced year of birth in Lola Astanova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). No edits other than to this article. The use of edit summaries suggests that others' edit summaries have been noticed, if not the warnings on the editors talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This has continued since the above was posted. Can someone please block this editor, at minimum for BLP violations. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has repeatedly reverted my edits on Lola Astanova over the last months and ignored my requests to leave reliable citations in place. I concur with Hipal's block request. pgbrown (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has not only reverted edits, the user has added information which is directly counter to sourced information and his/her edit summaries are plain uncivil. I also concur with Hipal's block request.THD3 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil Behaviour, Source Deletion, and Article Neutrality (French Revolution)

    Hello ANI,

    On the following page, French Revolution, a user has been altering very sensitive information in the article, removing references, and rewording statements without any synthesis having been achieved on the talk page. The user – Robinvp11 – makes edits of his own accord despite at least three editors in the discussion being out of agreement with him and no consensus having been reached. He responds to other users with condescension and ad hominem (or simply does not respond at all) and does not seek input from other involved editors.

    The neutrality of the article has now come into question, and a tag displaying such may need to be added. 021120x (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Please be aware in the future that users in question must be notified on their talk page as per the policies noted at the top of this page. I have done so for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am more than happy for the ANI to review the entire thread, which began when the individual above (a new editor) unilaterally changed the Lead of a key article to reflect an extremely contentious minority perspective and the page curator asked for support. I believe you'll find exactly the opposite; my apologies in advance and if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also point out that posting in the discussion is normally interpreted as seeking input from others. I also don't see a need for a NPOV tag. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To correct an above misstatement, the page was not "unilaterally changed", nor did the "page curator" ask for support. The individual who raised the discussion had no connection to the page nor had any knowledge of the topic. User Robinvp11 has reverted the consensus lede as written by user Gwillhickers, without even providing a response to the user's lengthy post on the Talk page. Further, user Robinvp11 has removed information and primary source material that was not even under discussion; only two specific statements were being contested. The page should be reverted back to last edit by Gwillhickers, which is last point at which consensus was reached.
    Regarding commenting on user talk page, comments would be no different than what has already been mentioned on article talk page. 021120x (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @021120x: User Robinvp11 has reverted the consensus lede as written by user Gwillhickers. Emphasis in original. Do you have any WP:DIFFs? I can't find Gwillhickers ever editing the article in the past few years. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran a search through User Contribution Search and Gwillhickers has never edited the article proper (just the talk page on September 11 and 14), so you'll have to clarify what you mean by "consensus lede". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, Tenryuu 🐲, I was referring to the lede as it existed following the final comment of Gwillhickers, which received no further input. That lede summarization reflected what had been discussed on the page and was a synthesis of the contributions; subsequent edits have been done of the editor's own accord and have entirely changed the meaning of the lede paragraph – along with removing material that was not being contested. 021120x (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first time in six years I've been involved in one of these, so I'm not sure how this works. Since an ANI escalation is relatively rare, I'd like to make a couple of points.
    (1) The edit history for 'French Revolution' is clear; it shows (a) Gwillhickers has never been involved in editing the article. (b) the changes were inserted by User 021120x on 28th May, and (c) I am not the first person to object; they were removed on 24 June, a change later reversed by User 021120x on 25th on the grounds of Vandalism.
    (2) On User talk:021120x there is a lengthy explanation by User:Acebulf as to their concerns re the edits made to the Lead, and that "you're stating a conclusion that isn't accepted by modern historiography as a generally accepted fact."
    (3) While I'm happy to assume Good Intent, the explanation provided above at 17:07 is not an accurate summary of the discussion on the Talkpage;
    (4) If you look at the article on American exceptionalism, User 021120x has reversed edits because they represent "a critique of the US created and propagated by European scholars". The same person who persistently denies the validity of European views on the US is now attempting to insert a perspective on the French Revolution which is a minority view even among American historians, and accusing me of 'lack of neutrality.' Robinvp11 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the lede as it existed following the final comment of Gwillhickers, which received no further input. I assume you're referring to this diff?
    He responds to other users with condescension and ad hominem [...] The only places that I could potentially construe as condescension are
    • For the third time [...]
    • I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same, and
    • maybe read them yourself?,
    though they seem to be born from frustration of a point that's going nowhere.
    As a casual observer, I don't really see any blatant instances of incivility or personal attacks (ad hominem). Is there heated disagreement? Yes, but in my opinion it hasn't escalated to requiring administrator attention. In fact, this problem seems to be a better fit over at the dispute resolution noticeboard, as the majority of the problem appears to be coming from source interpretation and the application of Wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Robinvp11 and 021120x to notify them of the link to a noticeboard that seems more appropriate for the problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenryuu 🐲 The original claim was that two specific statements were not suited for the lede and should be removed from the lede, possibly to a different section, on the basis of not being "widely accepted". The editor involved has simply ignored or disregarded sources supporting acceptance, and overemphasized his own preferred sources. He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion. Based solely on what has been discussed, the page ought to have been reverted to its form before the discussion began minus, perhaps, the two sentences in question. What has been done beyond this is unfounded. 021120x (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @021120x: That would make it a content dispute, not a behavioural one. Please provide WP:DIFFs of Robinvp11's comments that you find to be uncivil or making personal attacks, as I'm just shooting in the dark and playing the guessing game as to what was considered behaviourally inappropriate.
    He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion. Emphasis in original. Just because something is being discussed doesn't make everything else off-limits. I don't see any discretionary sanctions being imposed on editing this area of Wikipedia (and scouring your talk pages doesn't turn anything up), nor are there page notices that appear when opening the editor window like COVID-19 pandemic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tenryuu: Just because something is being discussed doesn't make everything else off-limits. The editor's rationale was that the removals and alterations were following the discussion on the talk page, which they largely were not.
    Examples of uncivil tone, ad hominem, condescension:
    • For the third time...
    • I've done you the courtesy of reading the Sources provided
    And nearly the entire post as signed on October 9, which begins with, "I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same." is littered with vitriol and ad hominem.
    Additionally, the only reason Acebulf has become involved is because he has been stalking my contributions across multiple unrelated topics and pages, going against Wikipedia's policy of Hounding.
    There was a further contribution from another editor on October 11, 2020 which now presents a more balanced viewpoint, and it seems that the leading paragraph has been adjusted to reflect this. A discussion will be opened on the dispute resolution noticeboard as suggested. 021120x (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @021120x: As I've said before, please provide diffs if you're going to accuse someone or just provide context in general: it makes it a lot easier to follow when things have happened and who did what. If Robinvp11 wants to explain their rationale for making that edit they're more than welcome to do so, but so far I don't believe anyone mentioned here needs to be sanctioned or blocked. Please take this to the DRN. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment from involved editor. The editor that brought this thread has made controversial edits and refused to address them with anything substantive. As such, the consensus brought forth from the RFC is that they should be removed. Perhaps requesting administrative closure on the RFC would solve this entire situation. Acebulf (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Acebulf, it appears that the RFC was opened on September 6 and closed on October 6, but looking at what's on the talk page, I'm not sure anyone can assume that the RFC consensus is that they should be removed; rather, it doesn't seem there is a consensus, which is when I believe WP:STATUSQUO would come into effect. In this case, I think that would still have the same result as removing those claims.
      That being said, a formal close would probably help alleviate the situation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenryuu, This issue was moved to the DRN as directed. However, the DRN moderator has stated that they will not continue with the review if the issue is still open here. Can the issue be closed here, and are you able to inform the moderator of this once it is done? 021120x (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    021120x, Since you're already here, care to explain why you're telling people to stop discussing the article on the article talk page? You have no authority to control who speaks on talk pages, nor do you have the authority to silence them when the discussion doesn't go your way. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Acebulf:, Please desist from WP:HOUNDING. The DRN moderator will not continue to review the dispute if there is an active discussion. Thus, commenting must be paused.
    Why are you accusing me of hounding? You made this ANI, and you made the DRN. Both of which I'm tagged in. Please stop telling users they are not allowed to talk. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 21:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have become too involved I'll ask someone else to close this if they feel it's appropriate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As the potential Moderator of the DRN- I just want to be clear- I did not tell 021120x to make people stop discussing this ANI case, I just told them that we could not open a DRN case while this was open. This case takes priority, and does not need to be forced to rush. The DRN will still be there whenever this is resolved Nightenbelle (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nightenbelle: No worries. I think they went a bit bold when trying to get this sorted.
    Support close Let's close this and move to DRN. This has gone long enough that we have to seek some kind of resolution, and the dispute seems to have moved away from one focused on actions and more on the content, though in a fairly accusatory tone that would need mediation. I support closure for the time being, and so does 021120x. We can always come back later if this escalates. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 00:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to confuse an already confused case more, but I have a few comments as another DRN volunteer. First, the rule at DRN is "Comment on content, not contributors". There is a content dispute about the French Revolution. However, the filing party, User:021120x, came here with multiple conduct allegations against other editors. This is now a conduct dispute until the conduct allegations are resolved or withdrawn. And if this dispute does get reopened at DRN, after resolving or withdrawing all of the conduct allegations, it really will be necessary for all of the editors to be even more careful than usual to avoid commenting on conduct or contributors. Second, this appears to be a dispute with ten editors. DRN has difficulty in moderating disputes with large numbers of editors. The method of dispute resolution that works better than DRN when there are a large number of editors is RFC. I am sure that a DRN volunteer will be willing to help formulate a neutrally worded RFC. (I am sure of that because I am willing to formulate the RFC.) If the filing editor and the other editors really want to have moderated discussion, they can close this case and refile at DRN, and perhaps a volunteer will agree to moderate. However, I think that this is a case for a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Robert McClenon. It would be ideal to continue with the DRN process, however several editors involved refuse to end character attacks in the discussion. Even when the DRN was opened, some editors posted only editor attacks in the thread, in direct violation of the DRN guidelines. Some editors originally expressed acceptance of the present article changes; however, they have since reversed this position and stated that they will not accept such changes in the article, giving evidence that content is not the concern, only the preserving of certain preconceptions. If the DRN proceeds, it will be without the editors that have thus far been incapable of behaving appropriately, despite reminders. This would additionally reduce the concern related to editor count and aid the moderation of the discussion. 021120x (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:021120x - You say that you want to resume or start the DRN process, possibly with a limited set of editors. It isn't entirely clear whether you are saying that they will determine which of them take part in DRN or that you will determine which of them take part in DRN. If you want to pick and choose who you are discussing with, that is not a way to achieve consensus. I may have misunderstood something, but you seem to be making matters difficult. You originally came to WP:ANI with conduct issues, including that another editor was hounding you. You were asked to provide diffs, and did not provide diffs, and were told that this appears to be a content dispute. Well, it is partly, but there still are your allegations of conduct, and making allegations about conduct can itself be a conduct issue, as is explained in the boomerang essay. You say that several editors refuse to end the character attacks. I haven't seen the character attacks, and so I can't offer an opinion about them other than that I haven't seen the character attacks. You say that some editors posted only editor attacks in the DRN thread. Having just reviewed the DRN thread, I do not see the attacks, so that it may be difficult for a moderator to manage a discussion that satisfies you. I may have misunderstood something, but I have a hard time seeing what will satisfy you, especially since I don't see the attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, a few of the participating editors revised their original posts in the DRN discussion. Wikipedia's policies class the bringing in of accusations regarding perceptions of a Wikipedian's contributions which occurred outside the bounds of the content under discussion, scouring past or historical contributions unrelated to the content, as an example of incivility; yet at least one editor did exactly this. In the talk thread, the posts and tone several editors abound with snide or accusatory remarks, many of which address contributors rather than content. It is impossible to have a productive or objective discussion with such behavior. Further, as above mentioned, certain editors have now undone their acceptance of some changes to the article that were recently brought about under a greater consensus; this is not conducive to a productive discussion in the DRN. Proceeding with the DRN would be best, but it must be held with editors that will behave appropriately. 021120x (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:021120x writes: "Proceeding with the DRN would be best, but it must be held with editors that will behave appropriately." I have a few questions about that idea. First, what would the purpose of the DRN be? What would be gained by spending the time of a volunteer editor, and the participating editors, and the community, in moderated discussion? Would it establish consensus? If it excluded certain editors, how would that establish consensus? Second, who would decide what editors will and will not behave appropriately? Third, why would you rather have moderated discussion at DRN than an RFC? Maybe these are all versions of the same question, which has to do with how a limited discussion will establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to have this discussion of this dispute closed, but I do not want it closed and sent to DRN unless we agree on what the (possibly unusual) conditions for the DRN would be. Otherwise we can just close this discussion, but only if we agree on how it has been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New Personal Attack by OP

    The Original Poster of this thread, User:021120x, has just made a personal attack in an edit summary at French Revolution. See https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=French_Revolution&type=revision&diff=983974974&oldid=983974314&diffmode=source It appears that 021120x is, on the one hand, asking to discuss at DRN with a subset of editors, but on the other hand, is edit-warring the lede of the main article. I will note that User:Robinvp11 is trying to discuss the lede at Talk:French Revolution. That's what the article talk page is for, duh. Even if consensus is with you (and there isn't a consensus as to what the consensus is), it is still better to discuss on an article talk page than to use an edit summary to say that another editor is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Robert McClenon: Because a DRN moderator would help to establish a binding consensus. One difficult editor that has recently joined the discussion has already altered consensus decisions which occurred before he began to participate and has expressed a desire to only 'stick to his guns'. Moderation would engender greater respect for the outcome of the discussion. 021120x (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: Changes as suggested on October 12 were accepted as being sufficient (with the caveat, perhaps, that they may be supplemented by more details further down). A new user has undone them, going against the discussion. The editor has no interest in following agreed-upon changes. Why is breaking the consensus considered acceptable? 021120x (talk)

    One Final DRN Offer

    Well, I have advised the OP to use an RFC, and User:Nightenbelle has advised an RFC, but I will make one final offer of DRN moderation, if my moderation will be accepted. (If any of the editors think that I have become non-neutral or involved, they can find another moderator, or they can use an RFC.) However, no participant gets to decide which participants are behaving properly. I am willing to make one final offer of DRN moderation. This offer is open for 24 hours, but only if the editors agree, and only if the editors agree that there will be no participant-imposed preconditions or exclusion of participants. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Robert McClenon: It appears that a moderated discussion might no longer be necessary, as the position held by editors such as Robinvp11 has recently been shown to be 100% baseless and entirely false. One of the primary authors off of which he and others hinged their argument stated (multiple times) exactly the opposite of what they have been arguing, and the author fully supports the opposing argument. Even direct citations have been included. Any continued contradiction will now stem rather transparently from nothing more than prejudice. The only concern at present is how much more information will be added to the article, and ensuring that such content is respected and unchanged. If this is all that remains to be discussed, I am open to holding a DRN review for it. 021120x (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose boomerang

    While I try to assume good faith, and I abhor confrontation, after the behavior pointed to by Robert McClenon above, I had a closer look at their contribution history. It seems like the behavior of 021120x worse than I had realized at first.

    From their contributions history, it seems that 021120x is engaging in widespread POV-pushing with pro-American, anti-British views in an attempt to counter the influence of what they call the "Britclique". (See [2]). Their modus operandi is to inject non-NPOV material directly in the lede, in an attempt to influence the tone of the article.

    While the French Revolution incident exemplifies this behavior and has gathered a significant amount of controversy on the injected material, there are at least two additional articles which feature low-intensity edit wars. In these, 021120x injects material in the lede, gets reverted a couple days later and then 021120x adds the content back, often also attacking the user who removed the content.

    • They are currently involved in a low-intensity edit war on American exceptionalism to caracterize the entire subject as a "European-born critique". This is removed by many different editors at this point, but 021120x persists in edit warring to keep it in the lede. (See [3] [4] [5], with the last diff also featuring an edit summary that calls another editor disruptive, see below)
    • Another low-intensity edit war is being held on American Revolution, in which 021120x is trying to include a statement in the lede about the United States being the world's first democracy. (See [6], [7], [8]) The last diff here is also calling an editor (me) disruptive.

    Personal attacks

    Accusing others of impropriety seems to be a key part of this user's interactions with others on Wikipedia. This ANI thread itself features numerous accusations of wrongful behavior on Robinvp11, which were then retargeted to me when I was tagged in discussion. Another editor which came across the dispute and wanted to give a perspective, Mathglot, was also the target of attacks that are described above. To put it bluntly, almost all people who disagreed with 021120x in this dispute have been accused of wrongdoing by 021120x. The pattern is clear; if you disagree with 021120x in a significant way, they will retaliate by making baseless accusations against you.

    He has also many, many other problematic edit summaries, as pointed out above.

    (None of the following are vandalism, even if the edit summary states such.)

    • [9] (Undoing revision by persistent anonymous disruptive editor.[...])
    • [10] (Reverting vandalism by "Danloud")
    • [11]. (Reverting vandalism by unregistered user. [...], the "unregistered user" in this case being admin Doug Weller. See User talk:021120x for more information on this accusation.)
    • [12] (Reverting vandalism)
    • [13] (An incontrovertible lie with no reference, no source, no basis in reality or history, no factual support, and intended as a form of denigration.)
    • [14] (Mathglot is a disruptive editor who is now arguing that his ignorance of history proves that certain things did not happen.[...])
    • [15] (Reverting edit by disruptive editor.)

    In short, this user uses Wikipedia as a battleground, and lashes out at anyone who disagrees with them. As much as it pains me to say, I believe that admin intervention might be necessary. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 21:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    40,000-foot view

    I'm commenting here with fresh eyes, by which I mean that I was pinged, and saw that this discussion is long, and have only scanned it very briefly to see roughly who/what/when, and did not read it. My contribution here now, is to try an offer admins and others a fresh perspective, which I will hope help achieve some context and perspective about what is going on at the article. (I will read this discussion after, and come back if relevant.)

    At the top level, this appears to me to be a content dispute about whether the American Revolution can be considered one of the causes of the French Revolution; and if so, to what extent. (At various points in the voluminous TP discussions, the point under dispute has wandered about, and it's been couched differently at times, e.g., "American influence"—e.g., Jefferson or Franklin ⟶ French Revolution; or American documentary influence, e.g., Declaration of Independence/U.S. Constitution ⟶ Declaration of the Rights of Man, but generally it seems to get back to "causes" of the French Revolution, and to what extent American events/people/documents were involved.)

    I'm a latecomer to this content dispute at French Revolution; my article contributions involve two reverts of undue material at the article. (Both were undone.) I have contributed more amply at the Talk page. Almost all of my Talk contributions have been in one of two basic roles:

    • trying to maintain order in the discussion and promote understanding of the relevant policy issues; in my opinion, the entire content dispute hinges on WP:DUEWEIGHT; it appears strongly to me that either the import of this policy is completely missed by certain editors who either misunderstand due weight, or do not agree with it, and hence, there is essentially a disagreement about policy that blocks any possible progress in the content dispute;
    • attempting to help point the way out of a long, circular, unproductive discussion that is going nowhere, by introducing a methodology that could lead to progress towards resolution, where there has been none before: namely, an appeal to tertiary sources to try to reveal what the majority and significant minority views are about the content under dispute. I'm still in the middle of that; it is here (perma) if interested.

    My feeling about what's going on at the Talk page is that certain editors are trying to promote discussion, deal with other editors civilly, and reach a proper, policy-based result backed by the preponderance of views by historians; while there are other editors (two to my knowledge; there may be more) who have already made up their minds, and at this point are not interested in working out what the major/minor views of historians are, but rather are interested in seeing that the article matches their views, and that anything else in their view is merely obstruction, censorship, cherry-picking, and bad faith among other editors who disagree.

    A key blocking point, in my opinion, is a misunderstanding of the tension between WP:V and WP:DUE. In some other topic area of the encyclopedia where there are, say, 100 sources, it's not impossible for editors knowledgeable about WP:V to read a good percentage of the sources and get a feeling for what is majority, what is minority, and what is FRINGE, without really knowing too much about WP:DUE, and to come up with a reasonable balance in an article on the topic. However, in an article like French Revolution, this is impossible. A knowledge of WP:DUE is central, and an ability to properly determine and assess the variety of historical opinion on it is crucial. The French Revolution is one of the most studied events in World History, possibly *the* most studied; many hundreds of tomes have been written about it for centuries, and countless articles in historical journals. It is not possible for any one editor to read even a small fraction of it, and to get a feel for the breadth of opinion. Conversely, an editor knowledgeable about WP:V could in good faith find 20 sources to support their (possibly fringe) opinion about some point relating to the Revolution, and not realize that it represented only a very tiny minority in the context of the thousands and thousands of articles written about it. In my opinion, frustrated editors at the article armed with whatever their favorite interpretation is, are falling into this trap by executing targeted searches to find sources to support their view, not realizing (or perhaps not caring) about the massive violation of WP:DUE that this might entail.

    By coincidence, I was writing this warning (perma)) at a User TP of one of the involved parties, when the ping arrived, and now, here I am. It seems possible that I'll need to come back with diffs after reading through this thread; if I'm not back and they seem needed as part of the discussion, don't hesitate to reping. Thanks. (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mathglot's message has since been removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats and dubious decision by Ymblanter

    Although Ymblanter arbitrates articles on Armenia-Azerbaijan topic, he/she has repeatedly made obvious pro-Azerbaijani decisions. The latest dubious one was when he renamed and protected [16] [17] the new name of the village used by president Aliyev in Twitter, three days before it was officially renamed by the Azerbaijani parliament. After I pointed this out to him, he twice tried to threaten me [18] [19], calling me "Dear user with 68 edits" and claiming I'm uncivil. Vaan23 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Boomerang for this personal attack, which as far as I can tell, is the only attempt Vaan23 made to discuss this before coming to ANI. Lev!vich 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vaan23, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to be able to make any meaningful comment on whether or not this is a case of the wrong version or not; it also doesn't really matter. As Ymblanter has pointed out, the venue to litigate that is WP:RM. The point of move protection is to prevent move warring and have people talk it out, not to enforce the protecting sysop's opinion. I do however agree with Lev!vich that your comment did constitute a personal attack; while references to edit counts might not be the nicest thing to say, accusing people of acting in bad faith to promote a dictator's interests is far worse. I recommend you retract that statement. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs, thank you for the explanation and for the third opinion. My problem is that I have an opinion I want to express (sorry, I still think Ymblanter's edits are biased), but off course I want to refrain of personal attacks to anyone here. Should I rewrite my statement to something like "I consider your edit biased and unjustified"? Vaan23 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vaan23, I don't know which of Ymblanter's edits you consider biased or unjustified; if you want to have a discussion about bias, you'll have to provide diffs supporting your argument. Again: I recommend you retract your statement and apologise. Whether you agree with the actions Ymblanter has taken or not, accusing him of being in the pocket of a dictator is not acceptable – and it is definitely not conducive to actually having a constructive conversation about your grievances. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I indeed seem to be the administrator who has recently been most involved with arbitration enforcement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area. As you may know, a few days ago a war resumed over the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh, with a lot of disinformation from both sides of the conflict, and this resulted in a lot of partisan editing on Wikipedia. None of the sides likes what I am doing, and I was repeatedly accused in being pro-Armenian, anti-Armenian, pro-Azeri, and anti-Azeri editor. I will be by the way really delighted if some other administrators show any interest in the topic, and I then have more time for other things, which I find, to be honest, more interesting. Anyway, after I semi-protected Suqovuşan, Tartar for 6 months as arbitration enforcement due to the extensive disruption and move-protected it at the WP:Wrong version after I have seen repeated moves of the article, it happened to stay at the Azeri name, which made Armenian users particularly unhappy. As a result, Vaan 23, a relatively new user, accused me and Solavirum, whom I do not know, in "distorting the facts" [20]. Well, I am obviously aware of the fact that as administrator I am subject to a greater number of personal attacks then I would like to, and that my actions are supposed to be scrutinized, and in most cases I just let the accusations go. However, distorting facts is not an aspersion I will let stand on Wikipedia. I suggested that Vaan23 apologized, and Solavirum left a message at their talk page warning about personal attacks. Vaan23 ignored both messages and continued editing. When I realized this, I made clear to them that they need to apologize and strike down the aspersion, otherwise I would take them to ANI. Apparently, they decided that the best strategy is not to apologize, but to go to ANI and to double down repeating the aspersion and portraying me as a pro-Azeri editor. I am afraid at this point we need a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Vaan23:, whereas this is a step in a good direction,. it is not really acceptable since I was responding on your old statement, not on the new one. You should have crossed out the old statement and add the new one. For the record, I obviously do not consider my edits biased.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Vaan23, please be calm and patient during discussions. Anyways, as I've been tagged here, and kinda a part of this issue, why not give my opinion about it. Vaan23 called Ymblanter (and for some reason, me) of being 'ahead of a dictator and distorting facts', which violated WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and I left a message informing Vaan23 here. And this application is just WP:BUNGEE. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • .
    • Ymblanter earned himself quite a notoriety by pushing his anti-Ukrainian as well as anti-LGBQT views in his edits and reverts on List of people from Ukraine. See, for instance, just a small sample of his edits and reverts [21] and [22]. In the first of those, Ymblanter deletes the LGBQT section in List of people from Ukraine, while simultaneously claiming that the editor who added this section is blocked from Wikipedia for calling Ymblanter a homophobe. As Ymblanter puts it, "for unfounded accusations in homophoby". No less. In the second edit, Ymblanter likely sets the Wikipedia record for the most succinct justification of a revert, by entering just "wtf?" for an explanation. Should the guy be given some sort of uncivility medal, perhaps, as soon as possible?
    • Ymblanter also launched quite a few of personal attacks on distinguished Ukrainian editor User:Mzajac and mass-reverted the edits of this editor on Ukrainian spelling of the name of Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, while threatening the editor with bans - see for instance [[23]] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C: Asking an editor to stop their disruptive edits is not a personal attack. Neither is threatening to seek consensus for a topic ban. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Mzajac is obsessively trying to rename any mention of the Kievan Rus' to "Kyivan Rus'", despite opposition by other editors in an ongoing discussion. Ymblanter was justified in reverting the article to its previous state. Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No he was not justified in reverting that spelling change in a non-historical article on a Ukrainian subject, which is not being discussed. It’s another example of editors who refuse to accept the consensus RM of Kyiv, staking out “historical articles” as their fighting retreat, and then counterattacking anywhere and everywhere they think they can. Now they’ve enabled each other to revert, disparage (“obsessively”? Sour grapes, Dimadick!), and claim everything is being discussed to put a chill on progress. If you have specific edits of mine you have a problem with, list them at an ANI, and justify your objection with specific guidelines and facts. In the meantime stop slagging me in public and disrupting my editing. —Michael Z. 15:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C If you see Ymblanter continue to conduct personal attack among other editors, I suggested you to report the administrator to AIV because vandalism from administrators and see what consensus to be. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks to be a content dispute, with plenty of edit warring from both sides. I also can't see much evidence of Ymblanter's wrongdoing here; indeed, those who are bringing grievances here are WP:BOOMERANGing themselves.
    • I had an issue with Ymblanter negatively labelling a recognizable group, and specifically me. It was only in a single comment, but I asked him to remove it, and he did so grudgingly, making it clear that he did not see anything was wrong with it. I blame this on a permissive environment for such offensive remarks in talk:Kyiv and related articles over the previous months and years, despite their being subject to discretionary sanctions in topics related to Eastern Europe.
      • The full comment, with my emphasis: (ec) I have actually taken it to ANI (and this is why we have this discussion at all), a few times, I have taken it once or twice to the arbitration enforcement, and since the community as a whole does not care I do not want to take every single case to ANI. My feeling is that I have already wasted too much time of the community. In this particular case, for historical reasons, there is a group of people who pushed for Kyiv, and there is no users who are consistently pushing to Kyiv (at least have never seen anybody who after the closure of the RfC was replacing Kyiv with Kiev in a modern context). I see daily edits on my watchlist, even though I removed from there almost all Ukraine-related articles. But, indeed, I should just stop. I realized already a long time ago that Wikipedia is not perfect, will never be perfect, and there will always be topic areas where I absolutely should not trust it. I am not going to spend months trying to topic-ban Mzajac or get them desysopped. I do not think it will be a productive use of my time, and I do not think this would be good for my health. My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. If the community thinks their activity is useful or at least not disruptive, let it be so. I am not going to spend my time on it anymore.-- This was two weeks after the community demonstrated consensus to rename Kyiv.
      • Our discussion on his talk
      • His initial token strike and comment while reinforcing his intent.
      • final strike.
      This is not about edits or article naming, it is about labelling individuals and groups, creating and reinforcing negative national or other stereotypes, and thereby letting others infer the community’s permission to indulge in and escalate such language. I have seen many other negative and indefensible comments by other editors about “Ukrainian governmental interference in the process,” “Ukrainian nationalists,” “Ukrainian trolls,” “the torrent of nationalistic fervor,” “how many Cossacks can be summoned from the steppes,” a “Ukranian 'invasion',” and so on. I don’t see much point in a specific sanction over this. Some others have made worse comments, repeatedly, and shrugged off any criticism. But I have started to recognize a pattern of tacit reinforcement, and decided enough is enough, now. It would be nice to get some expression from the community that this toxic rhetoric is no longer welcome. —Michael Z.
      • Based on what I saw in the last couple of days on Talk:Kyiv - many editors indeed are routinely labelling a recognizable group of editors, who edit anything tangentially related to Ukraine, with derogatory language described above by Mzajac to belittle them and/or silence them. Recent case in point - editor felt it was okay to say that "English Wikipedia allowing "certain" editors to make Kiev->Kyiv changes on Wikipedia" is akin to "European powers allowing Germany annexing of Czechoslovakia" - I do not have a problem with an editor who wrote this and I even suspect maybe that they did not realize the gravity of the words they wrote (I even told them myself that, frankly, it is probably best to take this whole "Ukrainian nationalists editors invasion" thing as humorous hoax)), but regardless of someone's possible good intentions when writing such things, these repeated inflammatory comments from a large number of editors against a recognizable group of editors who make edits on Ukrainian topics do not make this group feel welcome on English Wikipedia. In terms of how to respond to this: again based the discussion from the last couple of days on Talk:Kyiv, it seems that the majory of the community does not care about this, with only two admins taking an active approach on this in that discussion: Mzajac made comments on Talk:Kyiv that he thinks such anti-Ukrainian rhetoric being used routinely and nonchalantly is toxic to English Wikipedia, while Ymblanter actively reinforces this kind of anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. I do not know what can the community do about this (and if it is even possible to find a workable solution to this), but this is probably not good for the community if this continues any longer.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        For the context, RogueRickC137 is a user indefinitely blocked here and currently evading their block. (This is based on a behavioral evidence).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Ymblanter: You sure about that one? Which user would you think Rogue is, then? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, this is Piznajko who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption in Kyiv/Kiev topic. Note that after I have left the above message I became aware of the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piznajko. The IP above is likely a different user, who has as far as I know never registered.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    Well, now in the above topic we got aspersions cast against me by three users: One user is relatively new, one is an LTA, and one is an administrator. I do not consider any of the accusations valid and any of the aspersions justified (though I am sure diffs can be found and carefully presented showing that in some episodes I could demonstrate a better behavior). I am not quite sure what the community expects of me now. Ideally, I would do nothing, but last time I have chosen to do nothing in a similar situation the consequence was that a significant fraction of the users believed the aspersions. I would welcome advise from users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ymblanter, I didn’t think I was casting any “aspersions.” I accused you point blank of insulting me and any editors from a national group you decided to associate with me as the next best thing to nazis and fascists, in a public forum, and refused to admit anything wrong with that. Sorry if I was too polite for this to be clear. —Michael Z. 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mzajac: May I ask for the diff where Ymblanter wrote the supposed "next best thing to nazis and fascists"? I didn't see it in any above diff. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. May I ask if you’re saying I should happily accept the label “Ukrainian ultra-nationalist” without looking up what that means? I apologize for that to everyone that I’ve wronged by it.
    Now may I ask which national group and extremist political ideology you’d like other editors to tie your name to when they don’t agree with your edits? —Michael Z. 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mzajac: Now that's uncalled for. I'm WP:UNINVOLVED, as well as not living there. And nowhere in that reply did I ever claim that you should accept it, only that I can't see any evidence for the above insult. Sorry, but you also did not answer the question. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 02:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @TheDragonFire300: this is the diff that you are looking for, which Mzajac already provided above (and I think it is implied above that when Ymlanter used the term "ultra-nationalists", that term can be perceived by some as the "next best thing to nazis and fascists")? . Apologies for the somewhat emotional response from Mzajac above - the whole "Ukrainian nationalists conspiracy " thing has made many editors emotional, as they take personal offense in such name calling.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, @RogueRickC137:. Personally I'm reading it as a "borderline personal attack". My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists could be a reference to past disruption by said ultra-nationalists. Or a personal attack against those in the dispute. Then again, this is an uninvolved editor's opinion, so it could be read differently by those in the dispute. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was not clear the first time. I read your comment as a sarcastic challenge.
    Ymblanter’s comment labelled me and an unspecific group of editors POV-pushing Ukrainian ultranationalists. Apparently the “POV” is that the consensus name Kyiv is used in articles where it is not challenged. The comment was part of a long exchange that Ymblanter entered with this comment, referring to an edit that I had made, they reverted, and we discussed.
    When I look up ultranationalism, which I linked above, I see that this is a political view. Having not discussed either my nationality nor my politics with Ymblanter, I assume Ymblanter is applying the label to me and to Ukrainian editors strictly for its negative associations, and using a negative stereotype that is found in hateful anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. That article’s second and third sentences say “When combined with the notion of national rebirth, ultranationalism is a key foundation of fascism. Some ultranationalist organisations have been designated as terrorist movements by certain nation states.” Since Ymblanter brought editors’ politics and nationality into it, I would suggest that they have actually revealed something about their own views on politics and nationality in the offending comment, and offer them the opportunity to clarify those views. —Michael Z. 14:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but may be you should assume less and actually read and listen more.
    I have explained my views at least several times, but you just dis not listen.
    Let me try again and let me be very clear.
    We had a RM which was concluded as move Kiev to Kyiv. I did not participate in this discussion and in fact had the page unwatched.
    You have understood the conclusion that it meant that (almost) every instance of Kiev must be replaced with Kyiv, with the possible exception of Chicken Kiev. You indeed started to move everything. In particular, you started to replace Kiev and Kievan Rus' in historical contexts, i.e. applied to the entities at the time the term "Kyiv" does not exist. Other users disagreed with you. I reverted on a couple of occasions (and I am sure there are hundreds of more occasions I have not reverted).
    I opened the topic at ANI. You never reverted me back, but continued to make changes to other similar instances.
    We also had influx of editors whose only contribution was to massively replace Kiev with Kyiv. One of them moved Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv, another one was doing replacements in the articles on Kiev Governorate.
    JzG has opened an RfC at Talk:Kyiv concerning the historic usage, You actively participated in that RfC and badgered every single support, bringing all kind of arguments, to the point that people got tired and stopped replying to you because they thought it is useless.
    Now, during this RfC you continued to replace Kiev with Kyiv in historical contexts, even though you were perfectly aware of the RfC ongoing and that it does not have a clear cut consensus for this replacement. I suggested one that you stop, I suggested another time that you stop. Other users suggested that you stop. You have not stopped.
    You have seen the argument that the overwhelming majority of sources currently use Kievan Rus' (or Rus) but ignored it, continuing to insist that Kyivan Rus' is the only proper form since Kiev was moved to Kyiv.
    As a result, we have I do not know how many - hundreds? thousands? instances of Kyiv in the articles which are doubtful, and even before the RfC has been concluded. This is exactly what Ukrainian ultranationalists would like to see on Wikipedia. I have written this. Now, you have thoroughly ignored everything I was saying before that, and instead said something that there is a group of people who is not ready to accept that Kiev is now Kyiv and so on. Now, you suddenly assumed that I wanted to say you are a Nazi.
    But I said what I wanted to say, and not even necessarily anything about you. I apologize if you have understood in this way, this was not my intention.
    You came to my talk page and proposed me a deal - I strike this reply, and you stop replacing Kiev with Kyiv for a month. This did not make sens to me - either replacing Kiev with Kyiv is correct, and then you should not stop it, or it is not correct, and then you should stop it forever, or at least until the consensus changes. I first said no. Then I had another thought and removed my comment.
    Shortly before this, another user told me that I looked like an active promoter of Kiev. That was a clear sign to me that I should stop. I still think that what is going on is massive disruption, but I decided that if I am the only person who cares, I will let it go. If many users share this feeling, they will find some way to stop the disruption. I probably should have stopped earlier.
    And I did. And I have not written anything about Kiev/Kyiv for more than a week, except for one message at AN, which was merely to support another user.
    And now you came to the ANI topic which was not even about Kiev and hijacked it. I tried to make a subsection, and you hijacked it again. I am not sure what I should do. Last time I had such a pressure was from Fram, and we all know what the final result was.
    And, to finish this wall of text, my motivation is not to impose pro-Russian views, not to label you a Nazi, and not even to keep Kievan Rus'. My motivation was to try to enforce WP:CONSENSUS. I failed miserably, and nothing good came out of it. I am sick of all this bullshit to be honest. However, I maintain that you do not have a slightest idea about my political views, and you will never be able to derive my political views just looking on my edits. It is very convenient to label everyone who disagrees with you (and dozens of users disagreed with you) but this is not how Wikipedia works.
    I do not intend to resume this Kiev/Kyiv debate in any context, but unfortunately per WP:ADMINACCT I had to write this explanation - which I have provided to you at previous occasions, at no avail.
    Now could we finally stop this please? I am not editing in the topic area and I do not intend to edit in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See, for example, in Mzajac's comment above: Now may I ask which national group and extremist political ideology you’d like other editors to tie your name to when they don’t agree with your edits?. For having the audacity to ask for evidence, I must have some extremist political ideology? Now that's a personal attack IMO, but we'll see what others think. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, you have a bit of nerve dropping your complaints here, with ample assumptions on motivation, assumptions of bad faith, and aspersions of your own (“You have understood . . . ,” started to move “everything”, “I am sure there are hundreds of more occasions”), to continue to try to justify your inexcusable remark. You and I disagree on facts and interpretations, but I took every revert by you and a minority of others to discussion, respected their disagreement regardless of the merit of their arguments, adjusted my work based on feedback, and I am continuing it without further complaints. I suppose I might have eaten breakfast “exactly what Ukrainian ultranationalists would like” in your opinion, but that doesn’t give you the right to label and smear me and “a group of people,” either for eating breakfast or using a consensus spelling where it seems appropriate. Even if your interpretation of the facts and consensus were a hundred percent correct and those you have name-called are all completely in the wrong regarding this question of writing style. And okay, I fully accept your explanation that you didn’t mean “Nazi,” and appreciate the apology for that. But you still labelled me and other editors as POV-pushing Ukrainian ultranationalists, over spelling. You continue defending it, right in front of everyone here at ANI, but it remains unacceptable. —Michael Z. 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid I said all what I had to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mzajac: I'm sorry, but could you please stop assuming that I'm leaving comments in bad faith? I'm simply trying to make sense of the dispute. Personally, if this is what your replies are going to be to every editor who leaves a comment on this thread (that personal attack above was already unacceptable IMO), then I can see this ending in a WP:BOOMERANG sanction. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 19:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ymblanter : please immediately cease and desist any homophobic censorship attempts on the LGBQT-related entries in in the List of Ukrainians ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:2DD0:DD57:B9E9:23C4:8821 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    He has already stopped long before your comment. And what homophobic censorship attempts have been written? Please provide diffs. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum to above reply: If you are talking about this, then it really is what it says on the tin; unsourced. Also, the name changes in the reverted edit are against consensus while an RFC is ongoing. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The harrassment of @Ymblanter: should just be stopped, as well reiterating issues that have been discussed or settled, as I have partially taking part of the discussions. He followed the other admins ask, striked the comment, removed even parts, and voluntarily retreated already from the topic for now. He has the right to have an opinion despite, as others as well, even there are disagreements. It is a fact there are have/been a group of editors who were acting to quickly in the Kiev/Kyiv issue, a little bit misinterpreting the resolution and without waiting the complete outcome of the discussions. Overheated Ukrainian-Russian issues should not be imported here, not even at admin-admin level, all of us here are Wikipedians. Factually and professionally, his concerns on the issues were legitimate, also shared by non-Ukrainian or non-Russian (related) editors, btw. Again, as he retreated from the issue, any rally on him about after this is just not elegant. The worst thing is when editors precious editing time is wasted for a bit unserious soap operas, which could be better used on useful editing. I am disappointed to see an Armenian-Azerbaijani issue ended up a different nationalityX-nationalityY issue. This issue should be closed and only root cause shout be artbitrated, which outcome seems clear (no problem with admin conduct). Anyway, I would restrict administator related complaints strictly to WP:AN, since administrator issues should be separated from average community issues. Have a nice day everyone!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    Sports seasons and bulk deletions / nuisance nominations

    Hi, this may be an unusual case, but I wasn't sure what else to do.

    Several deletions are currently being disputed by users, seemingly correctly, about soccer team season articles (of which Wikipedia has many; thousands, I presume).

    At least a dozen season articles were recently deleted, including for some national top-level clubs, which would have a good chance of passing notability guidelines.

    The "debates" started by User:Spiderone have been poor ones, or nonexistent. Discussions all involve variations on WP:GNG, which requires that a topic can be referenced by sufficient independent sources – but, of course, lack of citations is not the same as lack of notability. Page Tagging would clearly be a less contentious method. The 7-day topic deletion process is something that well-informed users can and do miss – and when the deletion is mistaken or biased, the work done on the article disappears for no reason.

    Four current examples, including some vehement arguments:

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996–97 FK Vardar season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Békéscsaba 1912 Előre season
    Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

    These all involve WP:GNG and/or WP:NSEASONS, a slightly odd (and brief) U.S.-centric guideline on sports seasons – it was never designed to be an exclusionary device to delete as many articles as possible. The user in question also seems to say that the latter guideline has an anti-amateur stance, which it doesn't have; it simply says professional leagues should be included in Wikipedia. This is obvious.

    These recent deletions happened with little or no discussion, always the same minimal arguments ("GNG/NSEASONS"), and sometimes as few as three votes.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 FC Banants season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bohemian F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 FC Ajka season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Balmazújvárosi FC season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Szolnoki MÁV FC season

    Essentially, the recent nominations have been a waste of everyone's time, and I'm afraid Wikipedia is the poorer for it. - Demokra (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In all examples, excluding the Melbourne Victory and Doncaster Belles ones, no evidence of WP:GNG being met were actually brought forward by any of the keep voters. If there is decent potential for reliable secondary sources, then alternatives to deletion can be considered, including moving the article to draft space until such a time when it is in a decent enough state to be returned to the mainspace. A lot of the keep votes seem to centre on ridiculous accusations of 'sexism' and 'bias' rather than actually addressing the notability of the articles in question. Also, I tend to see a lot of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments over and over again. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and notable. At no point, has the project ever been about posting excessive listings of statistics and match results for as many teams as possible. Spiderone 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 I brought forward WP:3SOURCES to support WP:GNG. Unfortunately certain editors have studiously ignored them. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I changed my vote as a result as you can see. Reliably sourced and SIGCOV so clearly the content was worth keeping, either as being merged to the main club article or being kept in its own right. I maintained my delete vote for the other two seasons only but, of course, that's not what this ANI is about is it? Spiderone 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Another issue is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season where people are treating the AfD as a 'vote' rather than a discussion. Three keep votes registered but no actual evidence to GNG being provided; only very vague assertions that it 'must' be notable. Also, as @Jay eyem: points out, some very bad faith comments by @Bring back Daz Sampson: against me and User:Fenix down which surely should be examined too. And canvassing and more bad faith against Fenix down Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 Spiderone 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • edit conflict There are a large number of sports club season articles on Wikipedia, many of which on their face violate WP:NOTSTATS because they're poorly written, but would pass WP:GNG if anyone would be bothered to update them. Unfortunately the football community has decided that WP:NSEASONS is an exclusionary standard and will delete these sorts of articles regardless of whether WP:GNG is met if the team isn't in the "correct league," the clearly stupidest of which IMO was the Leyton Orient season which clearly passed GNG for the year they played in the Conference, just because the Conference didn't pass the WP:NSEASONS test, meaning that we won't have a complete list of season articles for that particular club. (It's clearly stupid since I can go down to the newsagents and pick up several publications which cover that league in depth.) That being said, I'm not sure this belongs at ANI - I think this conduct is a bit disruptive, and I would politely ask Spiderone stop nominating these sorts of articles for deletion for a little while, but I'm not sure there's anything here that's sanctionable. This would be a better topic for an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 12:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hjk1106 makes some good suggestions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season as to how we can move forward with regard to women's football league articles. With ones like the Hungarian second division and other non-Anglophone leagues, I would strongly suggest that people utilise the draft space and Articles for Creation options really. I see no value in keeping articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season in the main space. I also agree that there are many low quality season articles that clearly don't show GNG but get a 'free pass' because of NSEASONS. This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 Veria F.C. season is the only example I can find of one that actually got deleted but it was a very small discussion. Spiderone 13:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all content issues. In other sports, articles which clearly fail WP:NOTSTATS on their face are still kept if they would pass WP:GNG. In Kazincbarcikai SC's case, that's a current season that is receiving [26] ongoing coverage (as an example, I haven't translated that article) so I'm less concerned about that, but these are all content problems (especially for non-English speaking countries) and not ANI issues. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I agree with both @Demokra: and @SportingFlyer: I covered much the same ground at the DRV. I didn't raise an ANI myself because there is still time for Spiderone - he's only had sustained pushback from multiple editors over the past two weeks or so. Perhaps he hasn't realised the extent of the disruption? If he slows down it might help to show the community whether the issues outlined above are actually arising out of his lack of understanding or simple carelessness from bulk editing. Having said that, if he continues down the road of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND I suspect he will end up with a short enforced 'holiday' from making any further deletion nominations. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If I am nominating too many articles for deletion, please can someone clarify what an acceptable number is? A WP:BEFORE search is always conducted and major contributors are always notified upon placing of a PROD or AfD. Please can someone quote the exact rule that I am breaking from Wikipedia's policy? People might dislike and take offence to some of the discussions I have started but that's all I have done. Start and contribute to discussions on an open forum. I haven't been abusive. I haven't flamed anyone. I haven't removed any posts from others. I've admitted to mistakes and changed my vote when appropriate evidence has been brought to me. If I am close to a ban then I at least need to be given clear guidance on how to avoid a ban, surely? Spiderone 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I see. Can you outline please exactly what steps you take on these alleged WP:BEFORE undertakings? Do you for example have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, or its foreign equivalents? Are you seriously claiming to have carried out this rigorous process with each of the hundreds (thousands?) of articles you've recently nominated/proposed for deletion? Because the fact that you would nominate articles for deletion and then frequently find yourself voting keep, merge etc. in the discussion rather suggests you haven't done WP:BEFORE. Instead it suggests (to me) that you are relying on snap judgements - arising out of a dogmatic, black-white interpretation of some deeply flawed project-specific notability essays. Other editors have taken the time to patiently explain their concerns and you responded with a flippant "take it to DRV then". What are people supposed to think? I don't think anyone wants any bans we are just asking you to slow down and excercise a bit more discretion, to "dial it down a notch" in layman's terms. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    Actually I've read a bit further down and essentially you've already agreed to do that, which is to your great credit. I apologise again if you felt I overstepped the mark with the use of words like 'crusade'. From my perspective I watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Article alerts and there was a massive sudden uptick in deletions there, attributable mainly to you, which - not gonna lie - I found annoying. Hopefully we can all learn from this and work together fairly to ensure that notable articles are kept and non-notable ones flushed. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is completely absurd. These have all been regular deletion nominations, albeit sparse in their reasoning, with perfectly legitimate reasons for deletion. A WP:GNG failure IS a reason for deletion, no matter how many are nominated nor how frequently. Not only has a lack of citations satisfying WP:SIGCOV been demonstrated for many of these arguments, but no actual notability was shown. There is a process for appealing deletions, so the work is NOT gone forever. WP:FOOTY has maintained a list of leagues for which club seasons have presumed notability at WP:FPL for a long period of time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these nominations other than the sparse justifications, and this is a completely absurd thing to be bringing up at ANI. Jay eyem (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment, FPL has nothing to do with seasons, it is for players. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding was that it was for both players to meet NFOOTY and for team seasons to meet NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes NSEASONS is for seasons, so there is no need of mentioning FPL here. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also tried to tell Jay eyem that WP:FPL has no bearing on NSEASONS. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Good news![citation needed] SportingFlyer and Spiderone have been working towards a resolution, which I thank them for.

    Quoting from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season:

    We should probably get rid of WP:NSEASONS as it's been fundamentally unhelpful in allowing us to figure out which seasons are notable, i.e. pass WP:GNG, and which seasons don't. [...]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in support of ditching NSEASONS and using GNG alone Spiderone 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if we don't have the power to change that guideline, there are probably other ways of interpreting it regarding pro/amateur. It involves some lateral thinking – I mentioned in my first post, the U.S.-centric nature of the wording doesn't transfer well to other countries – but, the college sports section could be a workable equivalent for top-level amateur or semi-professional teams in other countries, perhaps.
    (from WP:NSEASONS)
    For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage)
    Cheers, Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't really make sense to me. Guidelines exist for a reason: they exist to help guide our thinking about policy, and in this case whether or not a subject is notable. To that end, NSEASONS is useful because it gives presumed notability for a range of seasons. Where there is a larger disconnect as I see it is between WP:FPL and WP:NSEASONS, whereas the former is an essay about what the project considers "fully-professional", the latter is a guideline that simply uses the word "top professional leagues". There is definitely some room for ambiguity there, so I don't see a major issue here. And there is a pretty extensive consensus on what sort of team seasons merit inclusion when it comes to amateur and semi-pro for soccer: for college seasons, team seasons have presumed notability when they make the NCAA tournament (for Division I at least); semi-pro teams have no presumed notability. Jay eyem (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have stated this before and I state it again, NFOOTY and NSEASONS are basically OP-ED pieces. They are ESSAYS and GUIDES but NOT POLICY. You can use then as a reference but NOT as a sole source reason to include or preclude an article from the encyclopedia. Take Spiderone's lead with regards to these articles and make a change in your own approach. If there is a legit notability surrounding these teams, leagues, athletes and seasons it should be our position to include them where we can. If they do not pass the primary notability policy then they should be out. The only place I leave room for doubt is in women's sports/topics and aboriginal/indigenous people/topics prior to 1970 and with just cause but that's subject of another debate and discussion we can have. If you are a nominator or !voter in an AfD and you do a search and find that the subject meets notability, whether that is included in the article or not, yet choose to move forward with a deletion then your discussion and !vote is disingenuous, without speculation as to why. The same can be said going the other way so I am not picking on those with deletionist tendencies but also inclusionist as well. There are editors who will add to an article, if given the chance, to bolster notability within the encyclopedia article. The key is that they are not notable because they have an article or it even proves notability in the article. They have to be notable without an article and regardless of what information is in the article. Again, articles can be improved. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad news!

    Oh wait, there are more.

    Note the distinct lack of rigour in the deletion process, and the near-identical patterns of posts by a few interested users.

    These do not include deleted articles about other football subjects, or ones from before Sep 12.

    This is from the PAST MONTH:

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004–05 Carlisle United F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 Darlington F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Sligo Rovers F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Derry City F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Bray Wanderers F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Shamrock Rovers F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Hereford United F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Stockport County F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Lokomotiv Tashkent season <- 2 votes
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 FC Istiklol season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Galway United F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season <- 2 votes
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Drogheda United F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Recreativo de Huelva season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Shelbourne F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Orapa United F.C. season
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_HNK_%C5%A0ibenik_season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 BFC Daugavpils season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Aberystwyth Town F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 FC Ajka season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Deportivo de La Coruña season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Budafoki MTE season* <- Nom. still open

    ... and there were more before that.

    These were all articles that existed and were removed, often at the drop of a hat. Deletion is not a trivial matter. The reason, notability, has been widely disputed and misunderstood. Maybe it's fine to be pro-deletion in all cases, but this set of examples were not achieved by consensus, but by attrition.

    Not commenting on a particular team (and not wanting to single out a user; I just think the deletionists should change their behaviour to be more constructive, as Spiderone has), but all of these articles need to be undeleted and reconsidered. Following from what Spiderone said today (below), I think a "GNG" tag would suffice, and then a discussion on an article Talk page. It needn't and shouldn't be a 7-day process, which heavily favours one outcome.

    Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Demokra: the only one, in my opinion, that should be restored straight to the mainspace is the Doncaster Belles one. Ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season had almost zero content; even the squad lists, transfers and results were empty; they are potentially fine if someone works on them in the draft space although I have not yet spoken to anyone who has good sources that cover the Hungarian second division. I don't believe having articles with no sources or content/prose would be appropriate. I would have no prejudice against any of the above articles eventually returning to the mainspace but draft space might be the best place for some of them as, if users are happy to work on them, then they should be able to demonstrate GNG. 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, 2018–19 Melbourne Victory W-League season and 2015–16 FC Alashkert season are good examples of articles that were in an extremely poor state but have been improved to a state where it would be hard to argue anything other than a GNG pass. Because of WP:NOTSTATS, I think it's important for season articles to have some sourced prose and context. I've spoken to User:Klio654, who created a lot of the above articles, on their talk page. Spiderone 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I kind of fail to see the issue here. Just on a glance, I recognize a lot of these teams as being from the Irish League, which is not considered "fully-professional" under WP:FPL. There has been virtually no dispute about these standards of notability in the past. There are always tons of deletion nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football and it's usually just players with one or two appearances total or who haven't even played their first game. It's not always super active and most discussions usually only involve a few users. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary, I fail to see how this constitutes nuisance deletion nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, FPL is irrelevant for NSEASONS. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And again no, it isn't. FPL is an essay used to determine assumed notability. It's not as strict as policy obviously, but it is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability for both players making professional debut and for team season articles. I can't see all of these old articles obviously, but I imagine most of the coverage was pretty routine and that there was a lack of significant coverage. That's pretty common for these sorts of deletion nominations, there is nothing about them that makes them nuisance nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And again no, FPL is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability only for players, here we talk about league seasons!!!
    Feel free to take this up at WT:FOOTY and WT:FPL. And please sign your posts so I know who I am addressing. Jay eyem (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have to take anything anywhere, everything is clear, you should read the policies and essays again, FPL has nothing to do with NSEASONS, it is for players, so stop refering to it! Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Use of an essay to pass off as policy is dangerous territory. If it passes WP:GNG, which is policy, then all the essays in the world mean nothing. The guidelines are for reference only, not to use as the sole-source of a decision or argument. The essays determine nothing, in fact, they themselves are riddled with phrases like "used as an aid" and "it is strongly recommended". Even the lists at WP:FPL specifically says it is incomplete. How can you use an incomplete list to justify the inclusion or exclusion of a league, team or season? That's why an element of common sense is required rather than a strict observance of policy and/or opinion.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This really is just restating my points. Guidelines and essays are NOT policy, but they guide policy-decisions. They help determine how a policy might be understood and applied, but they are not the justification for deletion themselves. It's worth noting that these nominations are mostly used alongside a WP:GNG failure, which IS policy. So while the reasoning is usually more sparse than it could be, these nominations are perfectly legitimate. I don't see a common sense issue here. If nothing else, a lot of these could be redirected, which is perfectly in line with WP:NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Want to clarify here real quick: WP:GNG itself is not policy, but nominating an article for deletion for failing WP:GNG IS policy. Jay eyem (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth noting that many of the deleted articles were unsourced stats-only 'template' articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season. It almost looks as if someone accidentally posted it to the mainspace prematurely from draft. If people have an issue with deletion of these articles then maybe it's worth proposing that they redirect to the main club article or be sent to the draft space until such time that someone can prove that they meet GNG? People are having an issue with the use of NSEASONS but almost all of those articles (apart from the Doncaster Belles) had no evidence of GNG. Spiderone 09:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NSEASONS clearly states that that "these articles almost always meet the notability requirements". You do not seem to respect that with all that nominations. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Bring back Daz Sampson

    The past week or so there has been consistent bad faith accusations and uncivil behavior at this user who has been consistently accusing others across multiple nominations. These have frequently involved @Spiderone: making a variety of deletion nomination for football articles, including some articles about women's football. Some of the examples include:

    From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9

    • Describing the deletions as a "purge", suggesting underlying motives of nominator (diff)
    • Describing an editor as embarking on "a large scale campaign to delete women's football articles" (diff)
    • Dismissively ignoring the argument made by a user related to team seasons vs. league seasons (diff)

    From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season

    • Consistently describing dissenting votes as "footy lads", "WP:FOOTBALL lads", etc. (diff)
    • Canvassing a vote for a deletion review (diff)
    • Describing deletion nominations as a "sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles" (diff)
    • Stating, without basis, that a user "clearly vehemently hates women's football" (diff)
    • Complete lack of faith in other editors, demonstrated most clearly here (diff)
    • Describing a regularly maintained (albeit, fairly, not well documented) essay describing fully-professional leagues as a "bullshit essay" (diff)

    From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

    • Continuing to describe those participating deletion nominations as the "usual suspects" rather than addressing the argument (diff)

    From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

    • Continuing to describe editors citing WP:FPL as members of a "tiny cabal of 'football lads'" (diff)
    • Describing deletion nominations as a "very sinister purge of women's football articles" (diff)
    • Describing a closing admin as a "card-carrying memeber of the stuffy boy's club at WP:FOOTY" (diff)
    • Additional canvassing (diff)

    This is completely inexcusable behavior. The individual usually on the receiving end of these comments, Spiderone, appears to be making regular, albeit quite frequent and sparse, deletion nominations, which have not been solely dedicated to women's football. Describing these as a "purge" is not only inaccurate, but completely absurd and inflammatory. Describing regular editors at WP:FOOTY as a cabal, a group of "football lads", and a "stuffy boy's club" are. completely unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Canvassing individual editors to make comments at a deletion review is highly inappropriate. And simply stating, without basis, that a user "vehemently hates women's football"? Inexcusable behavior and clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jay eyem (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE I was initially unaware that I needed to post on the user's talk page (despite it being bolded in red at the top, this is my first time really using ANI). The mistake has been rectified. Jay eyem (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Personally I think a topic ban from deletion-related discussions is in order. BBDS has shown over the course of many years (including her previous incarnation as Clavdia chauchat – see this previous ANI discussion that ended in her being blocked for incivility and subseuqently inoking her right to vanish) that she is incapable of engaging in discussions without resorting to casting aspersions, insulting other editors or making misleading and intellectually dishonest statements. Number 57 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from deletion discussions as proposed by N57. GiantSnowman 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as proposed by Number57. These accusations and personal attacks are the same behaviour as in the previous account. Clearly nothing has been learnt. Reyk YO! 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - too much incivility surrounding AFDs. Lev!vich 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't agree with this - the football project has long struggled with women's football, and I don't think it's uncivil to call this out or be frustrated by it. A topic ban would only further serve to wall the garden. A warning is sufficient. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Just from the original AFD discussion, there is a string or casting aspersions and personal attacks - this is not behaviour that is compatible with working in a collaborative environment. I would at least think a topic ban from AFDs is required, and possibly something wider ranging.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't looked into everything about this editor's behaviour, but must point out that any discussion of football topics, whether for players or seasons, seems to be based on whether a league is "fully professional" or not rather than the notability of the player or season in question. I realise that there are many sunken costs here, as many people have spent a lot of time on checking whether a league is fully professional, but can't we start looking at the notability of article subjects rather than an irrelevant issue about leagues? We currently have the absurd situation where, in the men's game here in England, we accept articles about players and seasons in 92 clubs as automatically notable, but in the women's game none before 2018, and in the rest of the world outside England and the United States none at all. We also have small countries such as Georgia, where there is a very big club, Dynamo Tbilisi, where players and seasons are far more notable than in any club in League Two, but are excluded from notability because some other teams in the league are not fully professional, which is nothing to do with those topics or that club. Surely it has been obvious for many years that this criterion is both Anglo-centric and sexist, and is not fit for purpose? It seems that anyone who asks this question is labelled as disruptive, as I'm sure I will be for making this comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is not disruptive at all, but it does show a fundamental ignorance about how NFOOTBALL etc. actually work. It's all based on a presumption of notability. If women's articles meet GNG, then they will be (and indeed are) notable and therefore kept at AFDs. GiantSnowman 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not a fundamental ignorance of anything. Nearly all deletion discussions of articles about footballers or seasons concentrate on whether the league is fully professional or not, rather than sources actually about the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment

    This is at risk of becoming a proxy "delete vs keep" debate, but maybe that's no bad thing. It should probably be seen in that context. This issue was brought here 3 hours after the deletions were (in the section above). All of the first 6 commenters here, from Jay down to SportingFlyer, have also taken one side or the other at least once in those unresolved Deletion discussions we invoked earlier – I've done so as well. I certainly don't feel I would really be neutral on this.

    Hopefully some 'disinterested' admins can come up with an answer or mediation (I've called a few but they haven't shown up yet). I can't condone Daz's uncivil tone, but they evidently felt that the women's team articles were being attacked and valid arguments ignored. As mentioned by Phil, the site generally has some history of selective sexism about sports articles; both Doncaster and Melbourne have been significant clubs in the women's game, and I think most of us now realise deletion wasn't the best first step.

    There are some new suggestions from both SportingFlyer and Spiderone, re: WP:NSPORTS, which I think are very promising. (Mentioned in section above.)
    Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been disappointed by some of the callous accusations but I agree that we need to move forward. Whilst I'm not planning to abstain from participating in AfDs, I have changed my approach. Rather than going straight to PROD/AfD, I'm choosing to put a GNG tag on some of the other articles that I felt didn't meet our notability requirements and will leave them with just that for the next few months. Hopefully, this gives the editors keen on keeping those articles a chance to prove they meet GNG as User:Hack did with 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, a discussion that will end with me having egg on my face! I hope that we can agree that there are certainly some occasions, still, with both men's and women's articles, when deletion was the only valid option (see here and here). Moving forward, I will try to focus more on GNG, especially when it comes to the women's football articles where NSEASONS and NFOOTY are practically moot. Spiderone 07:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Civility is important. I never condone incivility but civility itself is also a relative term depending on who it is that is using it. President Andrew Jackson believed the Indian Removal Act was civility. He believed he was "saving" entire cultures from destruction by moving them to territory where he believed they would be able to grow and sustain themselves without colonial/American intervention. Some question his motives. The results are mixed at best. I certainly would have a few questions myself had I been given the chance. My questions and opinions would have been largely ignored and definitely suppressed because I am a woman and that was the way of it during that time. The point is that American Indians didn't view it that way. When one is fighting for what they believe in they tend to view their own position as "the moral high ground". I will address the complaints and give my perspective. Take it for what it is.
    • Name calling/"bad faith" comments: I will go out on a limb here. I also repeated the position and even took the same as Daz at times. Whether it was intended to be that way, they aren't necessarily wrong about a purge. And they aren't wrong that it seems those engaged in WP:NFOOTY use fraternity like tactics in AfD's by following each other around and nominating and !voting together. I digress, some say they aren't, some say they are. In the end it doesn't matter and it isn't helpful to the encyclopedia at large to continue to refer to them as that. I am, however, very concerned about the practice of deletionist in Wikipedia. How many admins and editors have the number of AfD's they have made/won on their user page as something like a trophy? I saw one editor who actually keeps track of deletions versus creations and laments when the number of deletions doesn't outpace creations. I have had one self describe as a champion for keeping the encyclopedia pure in regards to a vote to delete an article concerning women. Name calling is never right, even though I have done it too. I admit it. Neither is this approach by editors/admins to infer that the encyclopedia is more pure because an article that many found useful and worthy enough to fight for has been deleted. When it comes to the two main genders, male and female, not to exclude others, I have no doubt more articles on men are probably deleted every year. I don't have figures here in front of me but I would be willing to bet there are a considerable amount more men's articles than women's articles. The deletion of women's articles hits our community harder because of the disparity between the two figures. If you are going to censor Daz then you probably need to look at quite a few others comments but I caution you, if your house is made of glass you probably shouldn't be throwing stones. Might be better to move forward with lessons learned.
    • Canvassing: I don't view Daz as canvassing anything by trying to get the word out about such deletion nominations. I appreciate them posting it on the projects talk page. There are a lot of issues here on Wikipedia, especially in regards to topics on women and specifically in regards to indigenous/aboriginal people. What constitutes a purge? Five articles? Ten? Twenty? The issue I have seen most on here is when an editor uses their subjective opinion of an essay to pass off as policy. There is enough subjective use of the general notability policy without us deleting articles because of our interpretation/application of an essay. Asking for others to weigh in and giving your opinion is not canvassing. Daz has never written me and asked me to vote a certain way and any discussion has been left to talk pages where it is in the open and dissenting views can be expressed.

    In the end, I would like to assume good faith on the part of every editor. But not every editor makes their decisions in good faith. Unfortunately, a lot of editors and even some admins counter the good faith argument by giving us reason not to trust their judgement. Time will tell and I can't be everywhere but I will challenge most deletions on articles about women and indigenous people when I find that they are notable subjects and regardless of what is specifically mentioned in the article. If I run across sources in the process then I will either add them or notify others. I will not apologize for defending an article even when others don't like what I have said. We aren't here to be friends and sing Kumbaya around a camp fire. If you can't stand your view point and subjective opinions being challenged then maybe being here isn't all that good for your psyche. Civility is a noble cause and we should be civil but some of us view any number of rapid deletions of subjects we may be passionate about as incivility in and of itself. That's a topic of debate I am willing to discuss. Ultimately, Spiderzone says they will try a different approach. I am good with that. I am also good with Daz challenging said approach when there is just cause. I may even side with Spiderzone as I have in the past. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note I did not bring up the discussion about fully vs any other type of professional because it is simply incorrect in every application of the sense. The reasons have already been supplied in my comments prior to this.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note

    From my list in the section above, these are some more women's articles that were nominated and/or deleted, apart from Millwall London City Lionesses.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
    - Also including 2012 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
    - Also including 2011 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
    - Also including 2019–20 Durham W.F.C. season
    - Also including 2018–19 Durham W.F.C. season

    I've made my feelings clear about the shoddiness of this process (in the previous section). The wave of deletions wasn't specifically anti-women's soccer, but it could be seen as such if you weren't following all the men's team deletions, which I personally was unaware of until yesterday - had to look it up and was shocked by how many were deleted.
    Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • These season articles are created by the hundreds using scripts. They're deleted by the dozen, which doesn't make a dent. It's all a giant waste of time, but it's some people's harmless hobby. I wouldn't get too worried about the deletion of a sports season article. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. (Except for the dozen or so people creating and deleting these articles.) Lev!vich 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of the word "harmless" and "grand scheme' and "makes no difference" sounds a lot like "let's make a treaty". It doesn't matter to you. We understand that. That's ok. Everyone has their preference. It matters to some of us though. It's emblematic of the encyclopedia as a whole. We should not take delight in deleting articles for anyone, much less women, and where we can we should fight against the exclusion of them, with justification for doing it and the use of common sense. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, @Ludost Mlačani: It sometimes seems that WP:FOOTY is to gender balance what the 1997–98 Kent Football League is to notability! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (as the target of this section). There seems to be a bit of "tit for tat" here and a transparent attempt to derail the actual discussion. I've seen plenty of trumped-up finger pointing at ANI over the years. Usually editors trying to cause needless drama to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. And I can only think that's the motive for this palpable nonsense. Yes I commented in a few nominations; so did you, Einstein. If using the informal mode of address "lad" is to be considered a personal attack or "ad hominem" I think we can all pack up and go home. That's stretching the definition of WP:NPA to be so elastic as to be completely meaningless. Two editors discussing whether to start a DRV and then doing it is not "canvassing", it is good practice. Perhaps if Spiderone had sought advice before his scattergun approach to deletion nominations none of us would be here wasting our time on this. Your characterisation of my interaction with Number57 is bizarre. Note that I pointed out an apparent contradiction in his position, he flamed me (with the diatribe about "intellectual dishonesty") then my reply to him was a model of restraint. I won't comment on the rest of the tenuous guff you've cobbled together but it seems to continue in much the same vein. Look, the last time I checked it is still allowed to disagree with Project-specific notability essays, especially ones as outdated, misused and perennially contentious as this one. Plenty of us do. I can't really help it if half a dozen editors identify with it so strongly that they take all criticism personally and become wildly offended. More likely I think they pretend to be offended to try and put a chilling effect on any dissent towards their local consensus. Nothing I'm supposed to have done is worthy of comment, let alone sanction. I'm confident that any fair reviewer will recognise that. But it's interesting you present yourself as a neutral onlooker here. Even before I turned up you were offered guidance on the matter by a veteran editor, which you thumbed your nose at. If anything your one-sided approach has been belligerent and bordering on hysterical, culminating in this vexatious drivel, which I wasn't notified of until several days afterwards. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 76.85.70.60

    This user has harassed me and another user, vandalized and broke 3RR. Needs a block of at least 72 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. bibliomaniac15 23:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In case you losers didn't realize, I have virtually unlimited IPs where that one came from. Check the history of Quarantine and Freedom of movement. Losers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.134.62 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for letting us know! We'll be on the lookout. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that all socks were so obliging! Nosebagbear (talk)
    Quarantine and Freedom of movement are currently semiprotected, but only for a couple of days. If the "losers" IP continues to vandalize them after those protections expire, it'll be time for longer semis. I'll try to keep an eye out. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I am sure they will make an effort to let everybody know they are vandalizing articles. After I have semiprotected Quarantine yesterday, they twice posted at my user talk page saying that I am a loser because I do not let them to continue vandalize.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He posted to my talk page saying that I was a loser. So I brought it here. Blocks should be at least 48 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy definitely loves the word "loser" and has since revealed he uses "IPSharkk.com" using another Ip. He's also vandalized housing alot. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    the guy definitely loves the word "loser" – Could be Trump. EEng 07:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's true, it would be absolutely YUGE news! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All IPSharkk.com 's IPs should be blocked for being the same as open proxies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown: at some point we need to file a WP: LTA for him. Singing off for the night. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose per WP:DENY. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I know about WP: DENY, but this clearly needs tracking. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's on prison now. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly sounds like a LTA but who is the LTA using the IP address Dq209 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Block 108.32.50.49 ASAP -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We could always make a new LTA, the loser vandal. This does seem like an LTA. The question is who? Or we could make a new LTA. This clearly is gonna be a problem for a while. Anyone making an LTA should link to this. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest a filter for this behaviour, with DatBot reporting filter triggers to AIV. Might be one of our older IP vandals, but identifying one specifically is a pointless fishing expedition in my opinion, and the time which would otherwise be used for this can be put to some other use. JavaHurricane 06:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I will put up a repository of his common edit summaries and phrases when I have time, but for a start perhaps let the filter detect the word loser from ips and report it to aiv. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 10:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What am I even doing at this point? Is what I have in my sandbox usable or salvageable? -GoatLordServant (Talk) 11:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now on Health Department -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, IP addresses, linked by their contributions, are the most useful thing to collate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to see how this goes. The vandal might have stopped. In that case, we can archive this section. I reported the abuse to IPSharkk. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    LTA?

    I strongly think this might be an LTA. It might be an IPSharkk vandal, we can always report abuse to IPSharkk or whatever it's called. I don't say we file for LTA, but we make a note of IP's used. They are likely open proxies. I suggest we convert current blocks/make new blocks that are hardblocks for 6 months. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of these blocks could be extended, but they're mostly fairly dynamic so protection is going to be more useful. I think IPSharkk might actually have a response department, if you do wish to contact them. Personally I haven't come across evidence that IPSharkk is actually being used. However I do think it's no coincidence that 99.247.195.218 and 24.85.226.201 were previously used by Blue Barette Bam. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: I believe it might be an open proxy. If that's the case, then they need to be blocked for months. And this could easily be a proxy. Try geolocating. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no doubt they're open proxies. I'm just commenting on the appropriate length. Most will be entirely gone within a few days. Others not of course.. those are the interesting ones.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could the LTA be Blue Barette Bam? or is it a different LTA 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: how about maybe we block them for 1 week hardblock? He seems to not use the IPs after block, rather cycle through them. 12 hours might be enough. Then again....we definitely need to get IPSharkk involved. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (merging section named "Range block of IP-hopping vandal" as it's about the same IP) Isabelle 🔔 20:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi everyone - over the past half hour or so I've been constantly having to revert an IP-hopping vandal on an assortment of different disease-related articles and I was wondering if there was a common range between the IPs, and if so, if it could be temporarily blocked. Here are the IPs they've used so far: User:73.85.202.178, User:66.158.213.197, User:108.215.70.164, User:71.238.143.181, User:72.76.174.204, User:24.130.9.49, User:24.128.106.154, User:187.152.120.49, and User:24.128.106.154. Cheers! — Chevvin 18:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Add User:75.83.182.59 to the list too... — Chevvin 18:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone do a REVDEL on the edits too?Citing (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And another User:68.251.96.213. Vandal claims that he's bored during quarantine. Look out for his "Loser" statement. Transcendental (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having dealt with Blue Barrette Bam IP socks earlier this year, I believe that the behaviour of these socks is consistent with that of the older socks of Blue Barrette Bam. JavaHurricane 03:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Blocked by User:Swarm indefinitely. Mr. Heart (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    With this diff, Jroccolv (talk · contribs) appears to be explicitly indicating that they have a COI with regards to Milli Vanilli, have no intention of following COI protocols, and are prepared to pursue legal action. DonIago (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am leaving them an ultimatum on the issue, and will be keeping my eye on it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked indef. Without intending to disrespect CaptainEek's approach, we don't and have never wasted time negotiating the retraction of explicit legal threats, we block by default until the legal threat has been unequivocally retracted. I see no reason to give this user special treatment when they are explicitly issuing threats. This is the community's position, and an environment in which editors need to be afraid or intimidated by legal threats and admins will decline or hesitate to enforce NLT is not a safe environment for an independent academic project. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you both! DonIago (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TomStar81

    I've reopened this (after a NAC). I'm concerned at the response to the unblock request (by User:TomStar81) that reads, in part: "...for the record, the threshold for inclusion is and always has been verifiability, not truth, so all this bullshit about false information is just that: Bullshit. Deal with it. Or don't. We don't care." (in which "verifiability, not truth" is linked to WP:V). This is not Wikipedias position and is no way to address an article subject who has valid BLP concerns about how we have written about them, even if they have expressed themselves badly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Might investigating the sources be worth it? Though I see no reason for the user's added unsourced content to be reinstated. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference to WP:V is fine, as is the legal threat block, but the rest is a shockingly bad way to reply to a user who appears to have genuine concerns and is simply annoyed at what they see as a misleading article, TomStar81, what were you thinking about? Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. Truth be told, the last few years I feel like I've gotten just generally angrier. At everything. And I'm not sure why. Maybe I sensed OWN issues and objected. Maybe I feel like he had it coming. Maybe I'm just tired of getting the short end of the stick on this board. Whatever the reason, it is a rather harsh reply, if it needs to be scaled back or if I need a trout I'll understand. I really need to remember to think before I act, especially on matter like this. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing, TheDragonFire300, and Black Kite: I've gone ahead and re-closed the above section while opening this subsection here since strictly speaking the above issues is resolved with the block, what I wrote is a separate car on the train so it should be addressed her but as its not per se related to the legal threat thread above it just makes more sense to split the two up as it were. I hope that's ok, if not then feel free to revert. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not troubled by such gnoming; I'd be more interested in seeing what you're going to do to fix the issue on the user in question's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Andy. It would be behavior befitting of an admin to make amends on what was honestly an unusually brusque response to a block request.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you find yourself unable to perform your function as an admin adequately because you've "gotten just generally angrier. At everything." then I suggest voluntarily giving up your sysop rights until you're in a better mental state. It's unacceptable for an administrator to randomly lash out at a regular user who's just going about his/her business. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just need to remind myself to type, then stop and read it and think about before hitting save. As for the reply, i'll apologize and rephrase to something more diplomatic. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It concerns me that, BLP violations or no BLP violations, Tom's dubious message remains in place. While I feel the block itself was justified, and declining the unblock was similarly justified as the request did not address the reasons for the block, I don't feel that the blocked editor deserved to be spoken to in the manner they were, and if anything, assuming that editor was on the level (poor methodology notwithstanding), I'm not sure what good is intended to come from addressing them in such a manner. DonIago (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    While Tom's response was harsh, I've looked over this editor's edit history which over the year all involves making sure she and her sister get credit as background singers on Milli Vanilli recordings without providing one reliable source supporting this fact. And they are both mentioned as singers any way. And over time, she has gotten angrier and angrier to the point of saying she was going to get legal representation. I've seen her Twitter account where she complains about her Wikipedia mentions and is trying to get attention from Tucker Carlson and the White House about it! If this isn't conflict of interest editing and SPA, I'm not sure what is. Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I retract my concern. :p DonIago (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, darn it, you made me look! :p DonIago (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    General uncivil behaviour by user.

    User:GiantSnowman has constantly been uncivil in his editing. As he has over 400,000 edits, I cannot go through every single discretion, but his attitude towards other editors has been constantly demeaning and condescending. This comment is incredibly condescending, and is plainly ridiculing my previous comment. His edits at Talk:Reece James (footballer, born 1999) recently have also been rude and condescending again. These are not isolated incidents, and it feels like every single time I have come into contact with him, he has been like this.

    I am sure I am not the only user at WP:FOOTY to feel this way, and I hope something can be done to quash this type of behaviour. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The top of this page states: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" - It appears you haven't done that?
    One diff probably won't do. Perhaps some diffs of the specific comments at the Reece James Talk page would be start.
    Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I forgot. I have now done so. Here is one example. The rest is just him acting as though he is better than everyone else on this site. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    David, let's look at your conduct shall we? Above you seem to have issue with me saying "you know nothing about football" (from a discussion 5 months ago!) even though that's NOT what I said, and even though you said worse to me recently. In addition, here I politely asked you to stop pinging me - your response was ping me. I politely asked you again not to ping me - so you pinged me again, and also told me to "go fuck myself". I then asked you tp stop pinging me and said if you continued that I would take it to ANI. Your response was to start this ANI thread. I think WP:BOOMERANG applies here. I have tried my hardest to keep my cool dealing with an editor such as yourself, who has been overly aggressive and badgering in the discussion. GiantSnowman 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to put great store by what you ask of others, so in return I ask you to please stop attacking me. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And where have I attacked you? GiantSnowman 19:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop mis-quoting guidelines to try and get your own way and You fail to understand. Neither comment is necessary and neither adds anything to the argument. Such ad hominem attacks weaken arguments rather than strengthen them. The points could be made without personal commentary. DrKay (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have just said, "I believe you're misreading the guideline." (I actually think it is a confusingly written one). Instead by saying "to try and get your own way" you're saying that DrKay is deliberately misquoting it, which seems like a personal attack to me.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I misspoke and apologise. No malice was intended, and no personal attacks. AGF works both ways. GiantSnowman 20:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) I have for a long time noticed that this editor seems to display ownership over football articles, and very little competence when it comes to other subjects. A recent example of mild incivility is this, which on its own is not something that deserves a report here, although I don't take kindly to being told that I have a fundamental ignorance of a subject when he should know full well that I don't, but if is this is a regular occurrence, and involves more sensitive editors than I, then some action needs to be taken. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was almost a year ago today that GS wrote (about another editor's proposal) "This proposal shows a striking ignorance of various sports", to which I responded "every time I see you insulting someone with whom you disagree, I will ask you to stop it", to which GS replied, "whomst have I insulted? I've commented on the content, not the contributor". Lev!vich 02:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here because I participated in the Reece James move discussion. I'm kinda disappointed to see this kind of behavior from a sysop. Look I get it, Davidlofgren wouldn't WP:DROPTHESTICK. But it takes two to tango. GiantSnowman could've simply stopped replying too. Instead GiantSnowman said Please, continue to a) badger me and b) engage in speculation. In my opinion, it's WP:Passive Aggressive. Having experienced this before, I also object to GiantSnowman asking Davidlofgren "As I've already politely asked, please do not ping me", and then going ahead and making snide remarks about Davidlofgren (Just the kind of conduct I expect from OP to be honest). And then there's this discussion from about 3 months ago. GS and another editor are discussing whether a sentence should be removed from an article. After much discussion, someone from WP:3O weighs in. At first, GS says I would respect the consensus, even if I disagreed. But then when the 3O is not in their favor, GS says The fact you have never heard of the subject means, respectfully, you cannot judge the situation accurately. It's also lamentable that a sysop is bringing up things like WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS to an editor with considerably less experience, yet fails to mention that per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 06:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Eldhorajan92, copyvios, edit-warring, disruption

    The Indian Eastern Christian Churches have been ground zero for significant disruption and sockpuppetry. Perhaps you admins have protected a page or two in this topic area. I am now running into trouble with a long-term editor, Eldhorajan92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It began with WP:MOS annoyances such as MOS:HON (although a larger problem with that edit is the number of image copyvios added). He will not use the correct link to Jacobite Syrian Christian Church but instead creates dablinks in articles because of using alternate names. He is now edit-warring against me and I have opened commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Eldhorajan part 2 because of his wide-ranging image copyright violation uploads, which he of course attaches to every article he can get his hands on. His talk page is replete with warnings to use edit summary (he uses a talk page about once a year) and he's been plenty warned about copyright violations before. He hasn't seen the errors of his ways. Elizium23 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jacobite Syrian Church have Two or more names that is Iam included, not more. Iam not against to do war fighting agianst Elizium23. Iam shown the correct information based, other ways this user support one only organization, what ever, Iam against it. He argued some pictures as copyright problem. Whether It have no issues, Its common icons of saints used many sites Eldhose Talk

    His article creations are copyright violations too. This article is just a direct copy of the churches website, which clearly states that it is copyrighted by the church. 192.76.8.92 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this edit is copied from another wikipedia page, without attribution. This edit is taken from this website 192.76.8.92 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. That's unsurprising, as he has tons of copyvios uploaded to Commons. I've started the deletion process there. Elizium23 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikiisawesome: @Diannaa: @Nicnote: @TonyBallioni: @Sitush:
    I have filed a report at WP:CCI where it will probably get as much traction as this report did. Elizium23 (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FloridaArmy

    ... Finally, bring the simmer to a rolling boil and maintain for 24 hours, then separate your editors and allow them to cool; the raw thread is now fully cooked. (FA has been blocked, and any appeals/unblock requests would be better addressed in a fresh, uncooked thread.) (non-admin closure) Lev!vich 19:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I know we extend near-infinite latitude at WP:JIMBOTALK, but are we really going to let FloridaArmy continue to accuse people of racism and bigotry for failing to accept his draft articles? [27][28] Guy (help! - typo?) 19:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't necessarily agree with everything said but are we going to stick our heads in a hole and pretend that people can't be those things and can't be here on Wikipedia? We don't know the heart motive of others so the only thing we have to go by are actions. I am the first to say we need to assume "good faith", especially in regards to new editors. But that isn't indefinite, nor is it meant to be indefinite, especially in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Otherwise the Administrators Board wouldn't see more traffic than Grand Central Station ever has. When I hear editors say that their purpose is to keep Wikipedia pure and how they are a champion for maintaining purity, which basically means a champion for exclusion, I tend to cringe at such uses because those same ideals have been used in the past against People of Color, Indigenous People and Women. When I see admins and editors touting their deletion record as a trophy it gives me pause. When I run across an editor who keeps record of the number of deletions vs creations and laments that the number of deletions does not outpace the number of creations it does cause me to wonder what the motive is? These things are not, in themselves, an indication one way or the other but it doesn't automatically mean it can't be the case either. Now, I don't think we should run around calling everyone who opposes us names or assuming the worst in everyone. In fact, I think the majority of issues arise from ignorance or strict adherence to what most have become used to calling their "standard operating procedure" (That's just the way I have always done it). I am a firm believer in WP:GNG but I am also a strong believer in WP:COMMONSENSE. I think we lean too much on keeping everything strictly by the book. It's ok to think outside the box a little. Go against the norms. Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs. That argument comes up in just about every AfD I have been involved in. I don't think Wikipedia could right great wrongs even if it wanted to. But it doesn't have to allow it to continue or even propagate it within its encyclopedia either. That's where common sense comes into play. Just a few cents worth from me. Take it for what it is. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tsistunagiska, this is about WP:NPA. FA repeatedly asserts that anyone who does not think his drafts are notable, is a bigot. The reason he has to go via AfC is because so many of his direct mainspace creations got nuked as not notable. But no, in FA's world, all his article subjects are notable and editors who decline them are doing so out of racism. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally way more concerned with the vociferous anti-anti-racists; surely at some point "Yes I will show up to challenge every single time anyone suggests anything might be racist, but how dare you assume bad faith by pointing that out?" crosses over a line? --JBL (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As my rather fed-up comment on the issue summarizes, [29] Florida's drafts are refused because they are bad, not because of systemic bias. That's not to say we don't have systemic bias, we have a lot of it, but I do agree that Florida should focus on the core of the issue and stop saying reviewers are being bigots. And maybe also stop highjacking discussions to try to get his drafts approved. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FA has asked me to strike that comment, claiming they didn't call anyone a bigot. I have done so, though I remain incredulous, as the title of the thread they opened was "Bigotry on Wikipedia"...and then linked a bunch of drafts...thus seeming to insinuate that AfC reviewers were part of the problem. I await their enlightenment as to whom they were calling bigots. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CaptainEek, and that is exactly the problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FA's comments at your talk page stretch the bounds of credulity. They used the header 'Bigotry on Wikipedia' and then complained about specific drafts that have been declined. Whether they intended for us to connect the dots or not, some of us obviously did. If FA did not intend to imply bigotry on the part of specific people, they should have chosen their words more carefully. But instead of taking responsibility for their poor communication, FA dropped a massive ABF bomb on your talk page instead. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not acceptable to accuse an individual editor of racism without clear proof. A while ago I warned FA to stop doing that. As far as I can tell, he has stopped doing that. I don't think listing declined articles he thinks should be accepted, as evidence of a systemic problem, counts. If he was naming names, it would be a problem. It is COMPLETELY FINE to accuse Wikipedia as a whole of systemic racism. It is completely fine to say our notability standards are racist. If you don't like the idea that we are, to a first approximation, as racist as society at large, don't listen to him. Ditto if you find him annoying. If you're sympathetic but think he's focusing on the wrong thing, or misinterprets our notability standards, discuss it with him. If you agree completely with him, give him a barnstar. Let's not silence critics who are criticizing Wikipedia or its processes; even if the criticism is wrong, it's healthy. Only individual accusations are concerning. A case could be made that saying editors were "puffing their chest" on Jimbo's talk page is suboptimal, but (a) it's weaker than what we let almost anyone get away with, (b) it's a little bit true, and (c) he's talking about me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Floquenbeam, OK, and listing the articles, when we can see the names of the people who declined them? I actually think FA does good work, but does he ever have a double-barrelled automatic feed footgun. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm misinterpreting the intent, but I don't read FA's message as an accusation of bigotry, but more of a frustrated statement that his repeated rejections are a reflection of a problem that impedes the creation of new articles that would actually help increase racial diversity in the article space. It may come across as petty and dubious, and Eek's assessment that FA's creations are rejected because they're simply bad may well be correct, but I think that's what FA was trying to say here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm all for helping increase racial diversity in article space, but it has to be done while adhering to the guidelines. I've worked on FA's drafts, and I've tried to work with FA; the first is difficult, the second frustrating to the point where I can no longer look at their articles, as interesting as I find the topics. Joseph Crews was enough. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies:(et al) Just putting this out there for all of us to think but can that truthfully be met when the guidelines themselves are exclusionary or biased and maybe even racist, specifically when perceived in a strictly to be adhered to way? That is not to say that those who view it like this are racist. We are all predisposed to bias. It's how we form opinions. It's not always a bad thing. I love fruit, others may not. On its basic level that is a bias. I also get that the encyclopedia has to have policies and guidelines but everything I have read, in regards to those, is that common sense has to be applied. No policy or guideline was intended to be used as a weapon to be exclusionary. I fully understand the frustration of some editors who see the encyclopedia being biased to certain subjects. I agree that articles shouldn't have conjecture or opinion in them, especially when few sources can be found, but if we know that a subject of the article was most likely notable, even if temporarily, for its time and place and the article only speaks to the sources that can be provided then we should use common sense and allow that article to be included. We can't right wrongs but we don't have to perpetuate them either. I don't know FA, outside of the limited time we have talked here. I don't know any of you outside of our conversations. I find most, including FA and even those whose ideas I oppose in the moment, to be exceptional individuals and I value your opinions and insight. We can battle over policy, guidelines and opinions but NO ONE here is my enemy.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drmies noted an article I created that I finally took off my watchlist and stopped working on completely because Drmies, a Wikipedia administrator, insisted on changing the description of a man murdered for doing business with African Americans and supporting their right to vote from Radical Republican to Scalawag. Perhaps User:Floquenbeam can provide some kind of defense for editors who slur murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out, but as far as I'm concerned these actions are beyond the pale. When we come across bias, racism, and bigotry on Wikipedia we must speak out against it. Am I now going to be exterminated from Wikipedia for pointing out an administrator's improper slurring of the murdered victim of White supremacy? Is it okay that we don't have an article on African American cinema? How many dishonest attacks and misrepresentations from Guy must I endure? Some of these same editors helped censor the Racial views of Joe Biden entry which is now completely protected in draft space from even editing, IN DRAFT SPACE, while we have lots and lots of other Racial views articles. But surely there is no bias here. And anyone claiming there is must be eliminated. Racism is a phenomenon of the right according to Guy and there was nothing socialist about the Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Might as well ban me and get it over with because I am going to continue to create lots of absolutely awful articles on these subjects and yell from the highest mountain top about the disgraceful and hurtful bigotry one must endure here. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with the statement "Let's not silence critics who are criticizing Wikipedia or its processes; even if the criticism is wrong, it's healthy." This was exactly the right place to make that observation. Alas, I fear there is no real will among the Administrators to give it any force, and those among them who think it is acceptable to block people for such reasons, and indeed who feel no shame in personally blocking their own critics, will always be the ruling class on Wikipedia. I guess the big question is, does the Foundation have a view on this, and are they prepared to use force if it becomes clear Wikipedia volunteers cannot be trusted to manage this project in a way that is healthy. An interesting question for those of us who observe Wikipedia from fifty thousand feet, out of a somewhat morbid curiosity as to how you get away with it at all. You may block me now, I am ready. Peace be upon you. Connor Cheeseman (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This, on the other hand, is accusing a specific editor of "slurring murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out". Since there have been multiple warnings to stop accusing editors of stuff like that without clear evidence, I've blocked Florida Army for 1 week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure "the masses" cheer the decision to silence a critic and Wikipedia's "purity" is all the more safe for it.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of fuckwittery is this? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called criticism of a decision. Do you feel you are above criticism?--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you get off equating a one-week preventative block to the martyrdom of "silencing a critic"?--WaltCip-(talk) 14:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I have as much right to voice my opinion as you do. The block is intended to silence him, not just now but also after he returns. It's a tool to cause him to be more timid, pliable, and less of a challenge. That's why you block. To even suggest that its implications were meant to only last a week is disingenuous whether you agree with what he said or not and irrelevant of whether you agree with the decision or not. I'm apparently not as afraid of being challenged like some here judging by the comments. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And here's me thinking it's to stop people getting accused of being in cahoots with white supremacists just because they did some maintenance work. Reyk YO! 14:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an opinion you are entitled to have. I guess we will see in a week if he returns at all. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tsistunagiska, that is an absurd statement. FA gets a lot of slack because we appreciate the work he does in countering our systemic bias. Any other user with this history of drama would have been banned long ago. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: What is absurd is calling the comment or opinion of another editor "fuckwittery" just because you may not agree with it. I have an opinion. It differs from others. I have my reasons for why as many do. I'm not expecting it to be accepted by everyone. I can even take it being challenged. I will not sit here and be insulted and demeaned by anyone. I am done with this conversation and most of you here who participated. You are no better than FA by your responses. Good luck trying to build a consensus with such hate being thrown around. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tsistunagiska, yet another belligerent non-seqitur from you. I see a pattern emerging... Guy (help! - typo?) 12:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I said I was done. You brought me back. I tagged you so I will give you that. I appreciate your opinion but it amounts to nothing of importance to me, personally, because all of you have lost the high ground by throwing around your banter and attacking those with dissenting views. Calling me "belligerent" like I am some two-year old you are babysitting is, yet again, an insult directed at me and shows your propensity to get personal. I won't resort to such. I addressed the situation. I gave my opinion. Accept it or don't. I haven't called anyone here by names. I haven't demeaned anyone or their opinion. I spoke to a greater issue on Wikipedia that most here would agree exists. I believe this block feeds that narrative and there are other ways to deal with the situation at hand. What's done is done. I have my own projects to work on. Thank you. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are non-vulgar words to use, Floquenbeam, when people disagree with us. Please consider refraining from choosing a swear (or swear-adjacent??) word when so many others would suffice. Thank you. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DiamondRemley39: Yes, I am aware I had other choices in wording when I responded. Your first sentence is patronizing. It fascinates me that you choose not to address the fact that I was accused of "silencing a critic of Wikipedia" to ensure our "purity". Purity was in quotes, by the way, making clear the parallel with KKK or Nazi interests in purity. That doesn't bother you, that's just "disagreeing with me". But you find it necessary to complain that I used "swear adjacent" language. Your priorities are screwed up; I think somehow you think I was less civil than Tsistunagiska. Perhaps you'd have been more comfortable if I had insulted their motives, but with no swear words? I said nothing about their motives, only the quality of their comment, and they're the one who feels "demeaned"? Fuck that. Another eggshell armed with a hammer. I am firmly of the opinion that they were much less civil than I was. I'm slightly disappointed more people (thanks, WaltCip and Reyk and Guy) didn't call them on it. I am firmly of the opinion that the actual meaning of words matter more than whether they have four letters or not. Given this lack of judgement on your part, I don't think I value your opinion on this, so please don't bother pinging if you reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fascinated Floquenbeam... apparently with my screwed up priorities? Oh....kay. I can't tell if Floquenbeam wants the last word or wants to goad me into wasting my time on a long response. I'll compromise: for the record, I just meant kindness is cool and that sort of third-grade character development whatever, Floquenbeam. My bad for wanting things not to get worse by semantics rather than by content. Seriously, why would I expect anything but a tongue-lashing in October 2020, even from an admin? I shake my head at myself. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone is wondering to which degree I am a white supremacist or spread their ideology or suppress article content about the victims of white racism or punish editors who write up those articles, this is what I found in June, which had already been turned down. This was my first edit. FA took offense to the term "scalawag", which indeed is considered a slur these days, but note what the lead on our article says: "The term is commonly used in historical studies as a descriptor of Southern white Republicans". Skip a few edits (and my moving it to mainspace), and we get this comment from FA, and then this--the problem here that it's not "resentful" (or, in the next edit, "some") Southerners who applied that term, it's the author of this academically published book. So FA's comment was editorial commentary, as I indicated here, and I attributed the quote here, making the term part of a direct quotation. But see also this edit summary by FA, proving an assessment of the academic peer-reviewed work in the edit summary.

      In the end, the article got on the front page (I nominated it for DIY, giving FA credit as well), which is, I imagine, one of the things we can do to fill in the blanks left by years of systemic racism in the US that has left many important historical figures out of school textbooks and discussions of history. And it's for this, for these edits, that FA calls me out as a racist? Crews was indeed "a man murdered for doing business with African Americans and supporting their right to vote", but you'd never guess that from FA's draft. And I "slur murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out"? I never slurred Crews, as the edits above should show, nor did I "enforce punishment" on FA or anyone else for pointing out anything. Look through my article creations, including this, and you'll see plenty of content aimed at improving Wikipedia's coverage in these topic areas. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      That article also notes, immediately following the quotation given above, that the term is deprecated by modern historians due to its pejorative implications (paraphrasing, I already closed the tab). Frankly I agree with FloridaArmy here, to the extent of the content issue and assuming instead that Drmies meant well and wasn't just out to be racist on purpose. It was not necessary to repeatedly reinsert this racial slur into the lede of this article. There is better, more descriptive, and less culturally insensitive language that we could have used. There is no more academic purpose to referring to Joseph Crews as a "scalawag" in the lede than there would be to calling John F. Kennedy a mackerel snapper (whether or not he was actually called that I don't know, but he was famously dogged by anti-Catholic sentiment throughout his career). We could have and should have done better.
      Conversely, there's a way to approach disagreement about this kind of thing without assuming that everyone with a different opinion to yours is a bigot, and especially without calling them that in writing. FloridaArmy has a point, but made it in the worst possible way. I endorse this block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ivanvector, it's used as a slur in partisan debates, that's what our article says (FWIW), but the citation should make it clear that the term comes from the title of a book published by Johns Hopkins, a book which should thus not be considered as a player in a partisan debate. For the record, I just read six reviews of the book (five through JSTOR), which BTW is praised almost unanimously; the book is about Franklin J. Moses Jr., still reviled in some parts of the country for *gasp* seeking an alliance with African-Americans, and vilified for his Jewish background. More than one reviewer comments that this is a useful attempt at reassessing the man's reputation (a 1998 survey concluded he was the worst governor ever of South Carolina). But to the point: the term "scalawag" is used without scare quotes and as a "regular" word in three of those reviews ([30], [31], [32]) and one review cites the author with approbation, "Revisiting the story of the South's 'most perfect scalawag', Ginsberg contributes to a broader understanding of the essential role southern Jews played during the Civil War and Reconstruction." So I think I'm on firm ground here, having treated it as a neutral term.

      Nevertheless, it's best to be clear, I thought after FA's comment, and so I put it in quotes and attributed it explicitly. So I don't think the critique was proper, even if FA had gone about it without accusing me of ... well whatever he's still accusing me of. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Never heard the term scalawag until today, but scallywag is sometimes used in the UK, in the useage described on the dab page, and usually in a comic-style. "Our PM - he's a a right scallywag!" Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was a pirate word. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it's a term of endearment in Liverpool. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I bet there's other Liverpudlian terms of endearment that could get one in on-WP trouble. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ivanvector, the attributed quote seems to em to be valid and appropriate in context - it establishes how the subject was perceived contemporaneously. It's a good use of attribution and a rare good use of "not censored". Regardless, there is, as you say, no way that Drmies is guilty of any of the things of which FA accuses him. That level of rhetoric from FA is wholly inappropriate and indicative of an unacceptable battleground mentality. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would recommend that FA is unblocked. The block does appear to be unfair, based on FA's generic whingeing, which did not mention a specific person. FA has a lot of work to do having started more drafts than can be edited to article standard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And here I was thinking that Drmies was a specific person, named directly and indirectly ("an administrator") repeatedly by FloridaArmy, as repeated (thus confirmed and strengthened) after the block on his user talk page. Feel free to oppose the block, but please reread the above discussion and correct your error. A speficic, named person was clearly and repeatedly accused of bigotry and the like. Fram (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Sundayclose won't stop pinging me even after I've told him to stop repeatedly.

    See also https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Harassment&oldid=977307101#Pinging_harassment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I stopped pinging Koavf until Koavf started pinging me again. If Koavf doesn't ping me, I won't ping Koavf. Sundayclose (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Use the mute function. Frankly I think it's ridiculous Wikipedia's culture of "stop pinging me". Use the damn mute function, everybody. Lev!vich 02:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point Levivich. So there's a mute function on Wikipedia? Where is it? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sundayclose, on any user page or talk page, there should be a "mute this user" link on your left sidebar (or at least there is on mine). You can also get to it via Preferences->Notifications. Lev!vich 02:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, He can ping me on something else: I assume that he may have something useful to say on another subject. Obliging me to do something where he will modify my behavior is not the correct direction of causality. Telling him to stop should be enough and yet I'm not doing enough to manage his behavior? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You told me to stop pinging you, so I stopped. Then you started pinging me again. As I've said several times, stop pinging me and I won't ping you. Are you saying that you can ping others but they should not be allowed to ping you when they reply? Sundayclose (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sundayclose, Yes. You are free to make the same request any time you want. You never did. This isn't complicated: if someone says to leave him alone, then leave him alone. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf, I disagree with that logic. You're the one who doesn't want to receive the pings, so you should make that happen by pressing mute, rather than asking the other person to not ping you. And also to not ping you about a specific topic? I mean, how much do you expect another user to remember about your particular communication preferences? It can easily be turned around as: You want him to modify his behavior because you don't want to receive pings? Now don't get me wrong, general statements like "leave me alone" should be honored, and intentionally bothering someone who wants to be left alone is not cool. But, as I've said, "don't ping me" is, in my view, an unreasonable request for anyone to make of anyone else, because we have a mute function. We're talking two clicks and you get what you want. Instead of you spending two clicks, you want the rest of us to spend how much time on this? Know what I mean? Lev!vich 02:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, I'd be very interested to see you make this argument on WT:HARASS. But yes, I don't think it's too much to say, "I'm done being pinged on this one thread: maybe someday later, you'll have something that I want to see". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf,  Done at WT:HARASS, and I agree with you that it is not too much to say "I'm done being pinged on this one thread" and the other person should respect that. But then if you ping them in your very next post, of course one would expect they'll ping you back. Otherwise what you're saying is "I'll ping you but I don't want you to ping me back" and that's just silliness. Use the mute function, otherwise we need a scorecard to keep track of who is supposed to ping who under what circumstances. Lev!vich 03:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a screen shot thumbnail with the "mute this user" highlighted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RE :I stopped pinging Koavf until Koavf started pinging me again. If Koavf doesn't ping me, I won't ping Koavf O, criminy. I should block 'em both. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said before, if someone asks you to stop pinging them, stop posting on their talk page, whatever you stop. The mute function is there and some may prefer to use it, but it should never be required. If you want someone to stop pinging you, ask them. Don't expect people to guess. Some people may still welcome pings from a person who said they didn't want ping. These features are intended to improve communication between editors on a collaborative project. If for some reason it isn't working, then they end. That's simple human decency, and how most of the world operates. I don't understand why people need to be brought to ANI to be told this. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that thread is like 2 months old and I can't be bothered looking into the history. So I'll just add, that there's no problem with genuine mistakes where someone forgot. Likewise, there's no problem if you stopped pinging someone then 2 months later they pinged you so you thought maybe they now welcomed pings and pinged them back. It would probably have been better to ask, but it whatever, I don't think it matters much. OTOH, if you pinged someone because you want them to stop pinging you as well then that's a major no-no. Just make a simple polite request for the editor to stop if you feel the same. Don't try and force editors to be mind readers and especially don't try and prove some lame point. The comment here makes me think it's something along the latter lines, hence why my initial comment, but if I'm wrong, sorry. But also, if you asked someone to stop pinging you and they did stop and started again 2 months later, well then please don't open an ANI thread. Instead talk to the editor, and politely ask again, 'hey I asked you to stop pinging me, maybe you forgot?' If they reply 'I'll stop pinging you if you stop pinging me' then you say 'sorry I never realised you wanted me to stop pinging you as well, I'll do that' and you both stop pinging each other and no one at ANI needs to hear about it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was poorly worded. For clarification, I meant this thread [33] is 2 months old, which made me wondered what the history here and who told who what when. I didn't check out this thread [34] since I didn't really care, but I now see that a request was recent. But I also see in at the end of that thread that the last comment was "If you don't want me to ping you, then please don't ping me." and even before that, possibly the first time the request was violated "Since you pinged me I am now pinging you." which adds further emphasis to my last point. No matter how poorly it was handled, the best solution was simply to say something like 'if you had wanted me to stop pinging you, you just needed to tell me, since you have I'll of course stop' and stop and not bother ANI unless the editor kept pinging you even after you stopped pinging them. If there was genuine uncertainty whether the older one was a request to stop pinging, then ask without pinging. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very disheartening to see two editors whom I respect a lot, having quarrels like these. I think it is because of Sundayclose, and El C, that I am still active on wikipedia. If it wasnt for these two, I would have left soon after I began editing. And it was Justin's contributions (not the number of contribs) what inderectly inspired me to increase my editing. Please guys, find some way to get over this. Just thinking about you guys fighting makes my heart sink, and makes me very uncomfortable. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dead horse

    Maybe someone can have a look at this (and you can scroll up the page, to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Darknessitselfflames,_103.75.162.18_and_Sunset_Shimmer) to see if this is a NOTHERE case. I know, the user hasn't moved back into article space yet, and that's why I haven't made that block yet. Drmies (talk)

    (Non-administrator comment) It doesn't seem they've gotten the point of the block. Maybe an indefinite block that confines them to their talk page until they understand that they should discuss this calmly and politely? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Uninvolved admin here. I saw this editor edit warring on AN/I through my watchpage, looked through a bit, and indeffed as NOTHERE. Three blocks in a short time span and no suggestion of better behavior, you're out. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, just the shouting merits a block. video, shmideo, I say! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple(?) editors including User:SpectresWrath going absolutely HAM

    Not quite sure where to post this -- there's edit warring, but there's also copyright issues, and possible sockpuppeting, as well as... uh... it's a spectacle, and a spectacle is a type of incident, right?

    The first thing I noticed, while patrolling RC, was the absolute thunderdome going on between User:SpectresWrath and User:Avdald (with tangential involvement from User:Pissedgreenlink). This is mostly stuff I should mind my own business about (since I'm not involved in the content dispute) -- however, this wasn't the first time I had seen SpectresWrath going wild on Wikipedia. In fact, in recent times, I recalled that they had actually been reverting up a storm - one that was hard to ignore, and one that I hadn't failed to notice. And it seems SpectresWrath has a heck of a talk page, apparently getting into scuffles of this sort on the regular (as well as c/ping COPYVIOs into mainspace on the regular), so it was not too long before I began to consider these reverts and questionable IP edits as part of a greater trend. And at that point, I found myself thinking: SpectresWatch has really been going ham on Wikipedia lately.

    It sure is a weird coincidence how many IP addresses there are in the 2601: range that only ever make two edits, which are both to this article, and weirder still that it seems to happen only when SpectresWrath is about to break 3RR. There's also whatever the heck this is -- from the looks of it, SpectresWrath being ardently defended in an argument by an IP editor whose only edits are to that talk page to agree with him (all of which are ludicrously bad-faith bordering on personal attacks). As well as ANOTHER IP editor whose only two edits are to that talk page (to agree with SpectresWrath). jp×g 05:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no connection with this ip editor because I truly have no idea who that was. Plus, I can't always focus one page all day when I contribute to others or take a break from wikipedia. You can't let a online encyclopedia consume you from real world activities. SpectresWrath (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For starters, let me express my absolute amazement that One Piece has TWENTY whole seasons. Second, I have full protected the page for two days, which should buy some time to find a solution. This isn't the first time these editors have run into trouble on this page, perhaps a partial block from the page will suffice, or at least for SpectresWrath. In terms of socking? Eh, possible, but not sure who would be a sock of who. If a CU would like to look into the IPs I think there is cause enough, but I can't piece it together from behavior alone. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's going HAM? Is it anything like "going hog wild"? EEng 11:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      EEng, I had to look it up, urban dictionary has an entry. Full marks for guessing the meaning from the context. GirthSummit (blether) 11:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was always told before to wait for official source to reveal episode titles and his source didn't say anything about them. So I undid it and hid the titles away until each episode aired. My last edit for that page was at 23:33, 12 October 2020. Why must I get blocked for trying to follow the guidelines. SpectresWrath (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by IP and (possibly linked) user User:GreenTeaExtracts

    GreenTeaExtracts and socks blocked by GorillaWarfare. The title of the level 3 subheading by GreenTeaExtracts probably tells us everything we need to know here. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Original section title was: "Disruptive edits by IP and (possibly linked) user User:GreenTeaExtracts: edit warring, ignoring edit explanations/won't discuss, adding fringe material, original research and unecyclopedic personal commentary to Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence page." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.244.166.33) and more recently a user (User:GreenTeaExtracts) (whose edits and notes appear very similar and whom may possibly be the same person) are repeatedly adding fringe material, original researcher and inappropriate/unencyclopedic personal commentary on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence page, edit warring and ignoring edit notes explaining problems with their edits (originally/their first edit here: [[36]]), first an IP and afterward the account. I reverted them first with an explanation in the notes and they reverted me writing in the edit notes simply: "Ideoological (egalitarian) vandalism, as regularly expected" ([[37]]). When I reverted them again, explaining my reason, I immediately was reverted again by an account (User:GreenTeaExtracts) who also largely ignored my edit not explanations and justified their reversion of me in the edit notes with the statement, "Ideological censorship of studies artificially labelled "fringe" while being very solid". I reverted on more (last) time explaining in more detail, asking them not to ignore my edit notes and linking to the Rfc decision on the topic and explaining that one of their sources was not reliable (and Wikipedia's rules against original research and fringe content (with links) - here: [[38]] and [[39]]). User:GreenTeaExtracts again reverted me, ignoring all of my explanations and links and responding only with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, calling me an "ideologue" and claiming that I was removing material I did not like; they wrote: "Is it possible to prevent Skllagyook to vandalize the article by deliting strong studies (from Nature, Intelligence, Science...) he doesn't like? Typical genetic hostility by egalitarian ideologue" ([[40]]). I have not reverted them again as to avoid violating the 3RR rule (I hope I have not violated it already), and thus all their edits currently stand. They refuse to discuss at all and simply insist on reinstating their edits with personal attacks and accusations of bad faith.

    Here is the article's edit history for reference:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence&action=history

    Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Also, the user User:Dopamineagonist who is now making similar edits to the same page ([[41]] appears to be a possible sock puppet of User:GreenTeaExtracts. Both have been reinstating the same edits and accusing those that disagree of being "activists" and of "vandalism".Skllagyook (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Censorship of data pointing genetic causation of higher ashkenazy intelligence by egalitarian ideologue User:Skllagyook

    Any help to prevent Skllagyook from vandalizing the article, deleting for artificial reasons studies he doesn't like for ideological reasons, would be appreciated. For exemple, he asserts that the link between IQ and myopia is "fringe" while strongly supported by dozens of studies (from Nature, Intellingence, Science...). It is clear that this guy is an egalitarian activist who doesn't tolarate genetic support for the higher ashkenazy intelligence, we have to protect the article against his vandalism. Thanks for your help. GreenTeaExtracts (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GreenTeaExtracts: As explained, this topic has been discussed (for example here [[42]] and here [[43]]). And again, the issue is not about my personal preference, but rather that Wikipedia has policies against WP:OR (such as your myopia addition) and fringe sources (such as Piffer, cofounder of the pseudoscientific/academically questionable journal OpenPsych. The 2019 Dunkel et al. source on the same topic is co-written by Emil O.W. Kirkegaard, another cofounder of Openpsych.). I provided links (such as in my note here: [[44]]) and explanations but you consistently ignored them. Also, prsonal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are also against Wikipedia policies (see: WP:NPA and WP:AGF.Skllagyook (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skllagyook: As explained, your ideological vandalism is UNWELCOME here. Please stop immediately to delete studies you don't like, labeling artificially "fringe sources" what your fanatism doesn't tolerate.

    Any help to exclude this ideologue would be appreciated. GreenTeaExtracts (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, so this article is a mess. GreenTeaExtracts is definitely edit-warring, and also quite hostile: [45][46][47][48] FTR, I'm treating the IP and GreenTeaExtracts as the same person; their edit summaries are identical; I don't see any place where they're pretending to be different people, though, so I don't think socking is really indicated. Skllagyook is also edit-warring: [49][50][51], though a bit more reasonably; they've butted right up against 3RR, but haven't actually crossed it yet. I would say a block is definitely indicated for GreenTeaExtracts at least, given the more serious edit-warring and stridency of their language. A block might be indicated for Skllagyook as well; theirs is not the most serious of edit wars given the context, but this isn't their first time at the edit-war rodeo. That's all just my opinion, of course; I have gotten myself involved, so I can't take admin action on my own. Just my 2 cents, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GorillaWarfare: Hello. Will I also be blocked? I would like to humbly request that I not be. I understand and believe, that, though I did not break the 3RR rule, I was in the wrong/in error for continuing to revert User:GreenTeaExtracts (and thus to edit war), and should likely have instead (after/when they refused to discuss) sought outside intervention sooner (and should do so in the future if a similar situation occurs). Skllagyook (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skllagyook: Not by me. I blocked the three accounts above because they were operated by one user in contravention of the sockpuppetry policy. I agree that you should've sought outside intervention sooner, but I think an edit warring block against you would be punitive (not preventative) at this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Conduct of User:Scope_creep

     Courtesy link: User talk:Nightfury § Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RDS (group of companies)

    Afternoon admins; may I bring up the rather poor conduct of Scope_creep after they referenced an AfD closure of mine. They come storming into my talk page demanding I reverse the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RDS (group of companies) or otherwise it would come here, essentially a theoretical case of blackmail, then blame the fact of a lack of skill on my part, which although I do put my hand up to; but I wasn't expecting the sheer strong attitude that they come out with. I see the user has been banned once before after another AfD dispute, and recently, of all things. Ultimately if they had been rather less strong with their attitude I would have obliged with their request. Obviously I feel it is right I should report it here. I don't think I have interacted with the user prior to this incident, so all the same, this is waaay out of the blue. Nightfury 14:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It was clear case of WP:BADNAC and he shouldn't be closing Afd's as he is not particularly good at it. He is not competent. I'm firm believer of people fixing their mistakes before reporting them. scope_creepTalk 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Scope creep, we have ways of handling bad closes. Unilateral undoing of them by the nominator is not one of them - not even at at BADNAC which allows an uninvolved administrator to do so. Further you didn't really undo the close - Cyberbot had to restore the deletion tag on the article and the article's talk page says it was kept. I think I am as vocal as anyone about non-administrative closes (and relists) at AfD and still my initial look into this is that your conduct here created problems that Nightfury's close did not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is process to do it. I never knew it about. This is first one I suggested as WP:BADNAC. This is the 4th Afd in as many weeks I've seen, where somebody has come in a closed it, improperly. scope_creepTalk 15:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This proves a point, we all have bad days. Everybody is still learning, regardless of how long they have been on Wikipedia. (edit conflict) Nightfury 15:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Challenged closes can go to DRV. Bad NAC get overturned as an individual administrative action regularly. And I am with yout that there are a lot of bad NACs. It's why I'm trying to change our policies/guidelines around it, but that doesn't excuse a nominator unilaterally doing it, and then, as the cherry on top, doing so partially/incorrectly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Crikey even I know that, and Scope says I have no experience... 😒 Nightfury 15:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a particularly helpful comment Nightfury. You came here to get input from other editors and are getting it. You'll likely also get some feedback yourself (I'm trying to finish up something else before I dive into your work at AfD) and responding there is appropriate. This comment is not. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking forward to it, Regardless, like I said above everyone is still learning. You will have to forgive my absence for a few hours from now, as I will be travelling home. Nightfury 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflicts) The issue here at ANI is not whether the closure was correct, but whether your "all guns blazing" approach at this editor's talk page, along with irrelevant personal comments, was correct. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nightfury, this looks like a learning opportunity for you. If you'd checked the contribution history of the !voters and read the source analysis by Scope Creep, you would not I think have concluded that this was a candidate for a keep. A relist may have been unproblematic though. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed the AfD closes of Nightfury's that are in his last five hundred edits and which stretch back to July. My findings build off what Guy wrote above but on the whole I don't see, under our current policies/guidelines/procedures enough to suggest that Nightfury should not be closing AfDs as scope creep suggested. I think this incident was a bad close as keep and should have been relisted and does reflect some learning they need. In general I think Nightfury is a too quick to close as keep (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild of St. Stephen). I also think that their relisting comments are sometimes more leading than helpful (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alwyn Simpson) but the relists themselves are appropriate. So I don't think there's really anything to be done with nightfury at this time. And I expressed, above, my concerns with scope's conduct in this incident which I also don't think is needing sanction beyond being remindinformed (informinded?) about how to handle this problem in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: I can live with that. Nightfury 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I noticed in the AFD that ScopeCreep commented in the discussion before reverting Nightfury's close. Isn't there an expectation that an involved editor should not participate in a close (with the exception of listing a close at deletion review). --Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — I think we do not appreciate scope_creep’s frustration here maybe because some of us haven’t experienced it & as one who has, it is very much frustrating & very annoying seeing a non-admin wrongly closing an AFD, I personally would have headed straight to DRV first then would leave a message on the talk page of the editor who did the BADNAC, basically saying what Scope creep said, but wording it better. Yes, when there are over a 1000 admins good at closing AFD’s, an editor with limited experience at closing AFD’s shouldn’t run into a field where experienced admins tread with caution. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring at Darren Grimes

    BLOCKED INDEFINITELY
    Trimperthon has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE by Canterbury Tail (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Can someone please look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Trimperthon_reported_by_User:PaleCloudedWhite_(Result:_) ? The user is at over 10 reverts now and no action in 24 hours. As I said there, I believe a WP:NOTHERE block is probably appropriate given their edit history. SmartSE (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed as not here. Was only going to block for the edit warring, then I checked their other edits and it's clear they're here to bring justice and right great wrongs here on Wikipedia. So gone. Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks SmartSE and User:Canterbury Tail. I revdeleted some of their racist statements; there is no reason to keep that in our archives. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, agreed. Canterbury Tail talk 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP editor edit-warring on Heritability of IQ

    BLOCKED
    IP editor 109.88.66.151 blocked for 1 week for edit warring at Heritability of IQ by MastCell (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    The IP-editor 109.88.66.151 has been edit-warring on Heritability of IQ, repeatedly (5 times in 2 days) removing content concerning the scientific consensus against theories of genetic racial differences in intelligence. On one occasion the IP replaced it by the IP's POV sourced to fringe authors (Richard Lynn and Philippe Rushton), see [52]. Three different editors have reverted the IP's edits, and editors have placed three warnings on the IP's talk page User_talk:109.88.66.151. The IP rejects the Wikipedia consensus (see [53]) that the belief that certain races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence is fringe, and is trying to promote a racialist POV. NightHeron (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the IP appears static, I've blocked it for 1 week in lieu of semi-protection. If the issue recurs, you can let me or another admin know. MastCell Talk 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by IP on Beer in Denmark and Ferrero SpA

    Pietro Ferrero, Beer in Denmark, Ferrero SpA and Daim bar are semi-protected for 1 month by Bishonen (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Hello, I am requesting that 5.186.116.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked or the above pages protected as this user has added exorbitant amounts of red links and WP:DIRECTORY information to the above pages, with disregard to a discussion on Talk:Beer in Denmark despite being told twice about this discussion on their talk page. They have been warned by multiple editors, and they have made no attempt to address the issues apart from leaving messages on other users' talk pages and edit summaries along the lines of "These brands/breweries exist, so stop reverting my edits", which does not address the issues in any way. Diffs: on Beer in Denmark, on Ferrero SpA, on Daim Bar. Thanks. Dylsss (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) There are also WP:BLP and WP:EXCESS issues on articles about members of the Ferrero family, e.g. Pietro Ferrero (diff) - adding and redlinking relatives without citations. Narky Blert (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now using 80.62.116.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to re-instate their changes on Beer in Denmark. I believe they've already gone past 3RR on this page. Dylsss (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's relevant, I believe the following IPs may be the same person, based on insistence on re-adding the same content to the same articles: 82.149.40.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 5.186.116.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 5.186.116.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 80.62.117.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Jessicapierce (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Too, too many IPs. I have semiprotected Pietro Ferrero, Beer in Denmark and Ferrero SpA for a month. Bishonen | tålk 16:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Oh, and Daim bar also. [Bishonen loses focus when Daim is mentioned.]. Mmmmm... Marabou! Bishonen | tålk 16:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks Bishonen and smaklig måltid! By my reckoning (assuming it's the same user) the IP came within 8 minutes of 4 reverts in 24 hours. Looks like they are familiar with 3RR?Tammbecktalk 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Help sorting out an ancient mess

    Would a helpful admin take a look at this discussion about some ancient FAC pages that are in the wrong place? I think (but am not sure) that an admin's help is needed because two of the moves are going to be over redirects that used to be for other pages. I don't think any history merge will be needed but I'm not an expert, so I may be wrong about that. I've put a list at that talk page of the sequence of moves that are going to be needed to sort it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) Hey there @Mike Christie: -- just FYI, this noticeboard is for urgent behavioural issues, etc. Your request likely should go to requested moves. MrAureliusRTalk! 03:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So I see -- I'd always thought of RM as dealing with articles, but since it covers project pages too I'll post this request there. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChuispastonBot is malfunctioning

    I saw in the history of the Duolingo page, he added English for Hebrew speakers. If you could get back, could you again undo this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gytrwd43 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gytrwd43: ☒N Stale. Last edit from the bot was in 2012. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tell Abyad quotes

    At Tell Abyad there is a discussion going on since May 2020, and we have a problem. An Editor Ibn Amr wants to have included two quotes in the Tell Abyad article:

    Quote 1: "The Kurds formally renamed Tal Abyad with a Kurdish name, "Gire Spi", and proclaim its new identity in signs throughout the town — written in the Latin script used by Turkish Kurds but not readily understood by Syrian Kurds or Arabs. They have also unilaterally detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and made it a part of their newly formed autonomous enclave, carved from areas traditionally inhabited by Kurds but steadily encroaching also on territories that were historically Arab."

    1. The Kurds, never "formally" renamed Tell Abyad into Gire Spi as Tell Abyad was also mentioned as Tell Abyad at the towns entrance for the time that the "Kurds"[ https://en.zamanalwsl.net/news/article/16665/ governed the town] and also afterwards like on the 2nd January 2020.

    2. The use of Latin and Arab script was and and is widely known in Syria (commonsense, Latin and arab script are literally written on I guess if not all, sure most major traffic signs in Syria, be it terrestrial or aerial, in Damascus or Aleppo, Idlib or Qamishli etc.) before the "Kurds" governed Tell Abyad and also after.

    3. That the Kurds "unilaterally" detached a town formerly governed by ISIL (within a "Raqqa Wilaya") from the "existing!" Raqqa Governorate of Assadist Syria is just nonsense. Assad had no control over the Raqqa Governorate at the time (2015). The Raqqa Governorate/Wilaya was majorly controlled by ISIL at the time. ISIL controlled Raqqa only fell to the Syrian Democratic Forces (Kurds/Arabs etc.) in October 2017. Sorry, but Tell Abyad was a major supply route for ISIS (as stated in the article) and was actually a part of the Raqqa Wilaya of ISIS at the time of its capture. It can't be unilaterally detached from an existing Syrian province, there would be necessary a cooperation between the YPG/SDF and ISIS which is utter nonsense.

    Quote 2:

    In administrative terms, Tal Abyad district no longer belongs to the Syrian government province of Raqqa, but to the Kurdish canton of Kobane. Although the population is predominantly Arab, there is no civil council to represent them as in Manbij, Deir al-Zour, Raqqa, and other Arab-majority locales liberated by Kurdish forces. Instead, the YPG’s goal is to fully integrate Tal Abyad into Kurdish territory, which the group still envisions as an autonomous belt along most of the northern border.

    1. There was a Canton of Tell Abyad all the time from 2015 until 2019. And there was also an Arab majority in the council governing the town.

    2. I'd also like to mention that the relevance of the quote by the author Fabrice Balanche is in fair dispute as the editor who wants to keep the quote of Fabrice Balanche called him an opinion in Kurds in Syria and at Tell Abyad he calls him an "expert". An "expert" who ignores and/or denies administrative entities like a canton/province and a civil council is not an expert. I advocate for the removal of the quotes and Ibn Amr wants to keep the quotes. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole (since May) ongoing discussion you can see here.
    The recent since 3 September ongoing discussion you can see from :here onwards.
    Ibn Amr mainly has the :argument sourced. Since May 2020, until today.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Strive for consensus on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, there are various forms of dispute resolution available for your use. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We have tried numerous locations like the NPOV noticeboard where Slatersteven said we dont have to apply with an essay, WP:UNDUE is no essay it is a policy of Wikipedia. I am tired of not getting any answer at the talk page and then getting blocked for having done all correctly.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We tried the DNR, the 3RR noticeboard we tried several times. I want a solution and here I come to the admins.
    I see that when you tried the DRN, a moderator, User:Nightenbelle worked very hard to establish compromise, and then recommended either finding a WikiProject that could offer a volunteer moderator, or an RFC. In Wikipedia, an RFC is the closest thing that there is to a solution to a content dispute. You may have been trying some of the wrong ways to resolve your dispute, such as the 3RR noticeboard, which implies that you were trying to resolve the dispute by edit-warring. You may have noticed that that doesn't work. Is there a reason that you haven't tried RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) There seems to have been an RFC (subsection at bottom of discussion) a few months ago at WP:NPOVN, though it may have been malformed and no one had stepped in to resolve the dispute. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenriyuuu is correct. I also asked the RFC to be reactivated, (to no avail) and EdJohnston wrote on the 11th July they would close an RfC if needed. We have tried many things.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As the DRN mediator, I just want to say- the problem here is less a content issue than a political issue. Those involved are pushing their political views onto this page and being subtlety petty towards the others- and wp tends to tolerate the subtly petty. However- the argument is keeping this article from being edited npov. I have no idea what the neutral perspective is on this article- but I am familiar with this argument in particular. Honestly- I think both sides need to walk away from this article for a couple years and find something new to work on. But.... that’s just my two cents after trying to find a solution and realizing y’all are more interested in grandstanding than improving Wikipedia. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't the DRN mediator. User:Nightenbelle was. I concur with her judgment that this is a political issue rather than a content issue, which is why DRN did not work. This is the sort of dispute that Syrian Civil War Community General Sanctions were authorized for. I don't have a specific recommendation, but I think that it should involve imposing some sort of ceasefire within the context of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If only we could impose ceasefires in a wider context. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If an admin would see how the parties take part in the discussions at the talk page and the case dispute might get much more resolvable. Ibn Amr mostly doesn't answer on topic (if at all), refused to answer multiple times (I quickly counted 7 explicitly at Ibn Amr directed questions by Konli which he refused to answer, and there are other questions and points by me as well to which he refuses to answer) and mainly edit wars.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Euro2024 - removal of self from admin noticeboard.

    BLOCKED INDEFINITELY
    Euro2024 has been blocked for vandalism by AmandaNP (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This user has removed a report on AIV. In addition they've repeatedly removed warning notices on their talk page (often with abusive edit summary), I believe done in bad faith to avoid escalation for edit warring/unexplained content removal. - Paul ❬talk❭ 12:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NB notification given but removed, per this users pattern. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno anything about htis dispute but Euro2024 attempted to remove this report and fundamentally change it... Praxidicae (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now blocked indef and also has been globally locked, apparently they've been up to the same stuff on multiple wikis. ~ mazca talk 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Here is the diff. 103.18.245.111 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What are you asking for here? Please explain what you want to accomplish and why this requires admin intervention. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In that edit an editor has been linked to a possible person on an external website. Does Wikipedia allow this? It seems unethical. 103.18.245.111 (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that OPs concern might be that User:Pahlevun's comment is OUTING the reported user. I don't think they are, Pahlevun is just pointing out the similarity between a username and and a subject to highlight a possible COI. --Paul ❬talk❭ 15:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pahlevun is posting personal information of a person (workplace, job title, photograph, address). That is more than pointing out similarities between usernames. The OUTING policy indicates that posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. 103.18.245.111 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated unsourced edits

    Rad-Emo013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Despite several warnings, including 2 final ones as well as a personal plea from myself in September, Rad-Emo013 continues to add unsourced genres to articles. Their only communication regarding these concerns was an attempt to antagonize, as can be seen here. It should also be noted that they were previously warned against uncivil behavior. Examples of these unsourced edits can be seen here, here and here. I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look please. Robvanvee 16:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've indefinitely blocked this editor, leaving clear instructions about what they need to do to get unblocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks as always Cullen328. Robvanvee 04:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass addition of unsourced dates

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

    Nearly every one of the 789 edits made by this editor has been to add a birth date or death date to a list of people. This has been done by:

    • clicking an article in a list of people
    • copying the birth and death date
    • pasting the dates into the list article.

    My concern is that frequently the dates being entered are not supported anywhere in the biography or the list article by a source. At their most recent edit at List of Puerto Ricans, the very first date added was for Ursula Acosta (born January 14, 1933 and died September 10, 2018), but in at the Ursula Acosta article, there is no source to support these dates.

    See this edit at List of Argentines where dates were added for Miguel Najdorf, though if you look at the Miguel Najdorf article, it was tagged as needing additional citations five years ago, and there is nothing in the article to support his birth date. On some list articles, this editor added birth and death dates to redlinked names. We're looking at thousands of dates added, and none of them with any source to support they are correct.

    This editor has made no response on their talk page to multiple editors, an issued addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Can we block to get attention?. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the user for 48h and provided the link to their talk page in the block notice.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 156.57.205.40

    This user has been asked/warned three times to start using edit summaries and for whatever reason refuses to do so. In fact, refuses to even acknowledge the requests on his/her talk page. Editing history is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/156.57.205.40 Perhaps a soft block until such time as the user shows up to address the issue?   Aloha27  talk  19:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Although using edit summaries is good practice and should be encouraged, it is not required. Blocking only for failure to use edit summaries is not appropriate, although it may be part of a broader failure to communicate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And would you rather have an editor use no edit summaries, or use uncivil edit summaries containing profanity and insults? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-existent edit summaries do not create work for administrators in keeping Wikipedia clean. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that we would rather have good edit summaries, but .... Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User KIENGIR is putting words into my mouth, what can I do?

    Hi, I have a dispute with user KIENGIR for a while [[54]], so far the discussion was very unproductive so I asked for a 3rd opinion. He makes accusations, when I give him a reply, he makes the same accusation, when I make the same reply he accuses me of "repetition", despite being merely the same reply to the same accusations he keeps making. The moment he loses the argument, he starts switching to ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation, then I spend more time debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself, with the conversation leading nowhere. He has often misinterpreted me in the past, but this time he went one step forward. In the RFC posted above, the said twice that I said something I in fact did not say: [[55]] and [[56]]. He argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it.

    When in fact, I did no such thing. I wrote a reply with diffs explaining that I in fact did not: when I asked him for a source - [[57]] and when he replied not providing a source - [[58]]. He then posted one of his diffs as "evidence" that I indeed agreed with him - [[59]]. Where it stands to common sense, that if you accuse me that I said X, you should provide a diff where I said X, not a diff where you say that I said X. He then moved the goalpost, saying it was about an older source not this one, despite his original "funny you start to deny again I provided a source" being a direct reply to my "you failed to provide any source for that 10% claim", and the RFC being about this one.

    Now he insists in a bravado that "the fact that you acknowledged later I provided a source on the matter, is openly readable at the page", despite that not being the case. If that was the case, he could have easily posted a diff with my post, just like he posted a diff with his post. He is unable to provide diffs where I supposedly said what he claims I have said, because I in fact said no such thing. He is trying to lie that I said something I did not say to make me lose credibility in front of the RFC. I understand cases of misinterpretation either deliberate or by mistake, but this is completly another level, he is putting words into my mouth. What can I do? LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant links: User talk:331dot § A user is putting words into my mouth, what can I do? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LordRogalDorn, you have not notified the user KIENGIR on their talk page (as the banner said when you edited the page). I have placed this notice for you. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that, thank you! LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOOMERANG, ([60]).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    And I have to add, the user again reiterated the casting aspersion what he was blocked for "He is trying to lie", other diffs are present in the one I already gave. It's enough also to check the his talk page, multiple warnings from admins, and the other talk pages encountered, bullying everybody, administrators ([61]), users ([62]), etc. lately he copy-pasting other user's comments and reflecting/inverting them, inlcuding WP policies and warnings others told him ([63]), this goes all along WP:TE, WP:LISTEN, more editors tried to always with extreme patience care about the user, but in the end all of us are wrong and evil, shall they be users or administrators (and I could present gazzilionths of other diffs for the aforementioned, but it would just tire all the community). Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    KIENGIR, I couldn't help noticing that, although you claim various things about LordRogalDorn, not a single one of your links is to a diff of something LordRogalDorn wrote. Would you please be so kind as to back up your descriptions of what another editor did with diffs showing the behavior described? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guy Macon:,
    - the first link I gave (the user copy pasted here what he wrote there contains the casting aspersion, which I highlighted. The prevoius block log you may check on the user's talk page and additional comments and links (in the first unblock request another editor became a "liar" around 4 times, in next around 9 times. After you see an extensive WP:NOTTHEM, milestones far from the reality.
    - the next other link directly shows conversation with others, including his posts
    - if you wish to see evidence for the copy-paste accusation attitudes, see talk of Hungarian irredentism, History of Transylvania, Origin of the Romanians, and lately very intesively in the already incited Hungary in World War II articles (and don't get scared, because you will meet an impossible walloftext, although more of us tried to shorten aswers ar far as possible...)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    No need to ping me. When I comment on a page it is on my watchlist. Also, I have not yet formed an opinion on which one of to is in the right. To do that, I need to look at the evidence, hence my request that you provide diffs. I have purposely not looked at LordRogalDorn's diffs because I don't want to see just one side of the story, but if your next response does not contain diffs with LordRogalDorn's signature I will have to assume that you have no evidence to back up your claims. Again, none of this assumes that LordRogalDorn has a case. I haven't looked at the evidence yet so I have no opinion on that yet.
    No, I am not going to read through an entire section that you link to. Either provide a diff with LordRogalDorn's name on it or it didn't happen. I know how to access the context, but first I need to see a diff. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but because you are not willing to see the diffs and evidence I provided (now you outlined you wish to see diffs with his signature), it does not mean your assumption is valid, because you just outlined you won't read an entire section, so in fact I work instead of you. But no problem, I'll pick of every issue one short demonstrative sample. A moment.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    I have to mention, last time, user KIENGIR deliberately misinterpreted a source and I knew that he knew it was a misinterpretation because we discussed that source. So I called him out for it. He told and admin and I got temporarily blocked for accusing another user of lying. In the appeal, I attempted to prove with diffs that he was genuinely and undoubtedly lying, but the admin declined my appeal because it was too long and he was not going to read all that. I understand this, as I could have been more succint. I also understand that my comment regardless of truthfulness or evidence was unhelpful and unnecessary, I could and should have only sticked to proving the arguments of the other person wrong without any accusations about the person itself. But this is a completly different level, it's not a deliberate misinterpretation of a source, but a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing.
    The diffs he brings up as "evidence" that I'm a bully are rather ironic. I was new to Wikipedia and tried to add something to an article. Another user opposed and we had a discussion. He stopped talking for 2 days saying something like "I'm done" at the end. I took this as leaving the discussion, so 2 days later I reverted the edit. Got temporary blocked for that edit. I believed it was unfair so I talked to the admin who blocked me, turns out, I should have menitoned that I'm undoing that page in the absence of explicit opposition, which I didn't, so he was right to block me. He said that this is not a judgment on my merits, but only on the edit revert, so I can come back and continue the discussion after that. But I considered it's not worth it so I dropped it. A few days later, another user took my old edits and reposted them, the same user opposed him again, he quoted a part of the policy and turns out he was right, so my original edits remained part of the article in a funny way. I had the right information, but didn't know the Wikipedia method.
    The "but in the end all of us are wrong and evil" is really only user KIENGIR. He is trying to make it look like he's the majority somehow. But nobody else told me this. Beside other things that he refers to as "we". He only cherry picked a few that I previously explained, there are no gazzilionths.
    Anyway, this is what I meant about him going for ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation, then I spend more time debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself. As Guy Macon pointed out, he claimed a lot of things about me, but did not present a single diff where I said what he claims that I said. This is a reccuring theme for him, with making accusations and his evidence being "it's self-evident" or "you can just read above", being as vague as possible so he won't have to back up his declarations. You can probably see how defending myself is redundant at this point, as he can make accusations on a conveyor belt, which is why I hope you don't mind if I only defend myself when the admin tells me to defend myself in order to avoid future walls of text and not get too much off-topic. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For Guy Macon's request: On the exact issue here, sampled from here ([([64])]) The user told I did not provide a source in the article's talk ([65]), ([66]), also at AN3 ([67]), ([68]) (just a few samples from the many, the last diff - again a boomerang report, even contain the lying casting aspersions and reptititvely that I did not provide a source, etc.), although it has been always there ([69]). After the admin warned him ([70]), after he acknowledged I provided a source ([71]) (highlight, "yes you provided a source". Now, one month later, at another talk when I was referring back to this evidence, he responded ([72]) (highlight, "Again misleading and fallacious argumentation, I provided 2 sources while you provided nothing. (...) although this issue has been already discussed and demonstrated nearly 1 month ago (WP:LISTEN)" (in this you see also evidence for the copy-paste issue, since the second part of the sentence is what I directly told him before).

    So after I faced him it is not a good thing after recurrent denial that I provided the source he again starts to deny it, although by admin pressure he finally acknowlegded I did....after, again in a counter-accusative rant ([73]) he again denied I provided a source, but foxily he cited in diffs from another recent discussion, in which he claimed a source (which anyway I don't have to provide since we have them already and that's all just about the user's fallacious interpretation), but it was unrelated to the discussion 1 month ago.

    So now we have this boomerang report, when the user in a very lame way tries to coin the community and in fact he does what he is accusing me (despite I told him with experienced and diff-issue check-willing - huh, to even get through of those specified diff's walloftexts' - editors/admins he has no chance.

    For further casting aspersions, see ([74]) or [75] (just search on the word lie) or previously this ([76]), but there would be much more. Guy, I hope you are satisfied and catched the issue.

    (disclaimer, I just noticed meanwhile composing this, the user already put a long something, I will review it only now, may be the answer will built into this composition)(KIENGIR (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    ADDENDUM on the user's new "demonstration":
    - "attempted to prove with diffs that he was genuinely and undoubtedly lying" -> WP:NOTTHEM, the user did not understand/acknowledge why he was blocked for, and now again uses this argumentation as an excuse, however I never lied, but it does not matter
    - "but a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing" -> Sorry, to say that, epic fail as just here, recurrently
    - "He is trying to make it look like he's the majority somehow. But nobody else told me this." -> ([77]) (Highlight -> "Three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days")
    - "so my original edits remained part of the article in a funny way" -> It will be reviewed, as the perpetrator seem to be an IP generic following the same argumentation as the user ([78]), while another IP which appears to be a sock anyway ([79]) was just blocked for 6 months.
    - "The "but in the end all of us are wrong and evil" is really only user KIENGIR." -> yes, maybe I am the devil incarnate.
    I really sorry I have to spend so much time with obvious issues and not happy editing, in the aforementioned pages in every (half?) year we encounter some very tendentious and enthusastic trolls which are consuming our precius time, but our patience are almost unlimited.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    Please, read the whole text from the diff provided by user KIENGIR in order to avoid cherry picking, [[[80]]: "You provided a source, but it is not a source that counters my original source. The only source you provided only further proves the 1941 census is misleading without the mention of mass immigration.". He provided a source. Not a source relevant on the subject at hand. We were talking back then, as well as right here, about the 1940 censuses. For those, I have provided 2 sources, while he provided no source.
    Admin pressure? wtf? Please, provide a diff where the admin pressured me to acknowledge your so called source. About his "highlight", is again a poor attempt to mislead by taking things out of context: it was part of that funny discussion. There were no three editors who tried to explain me a basic rule for days, and the admin acknowledged there were no 3 editors, but nonetheless he temorarly blocked me for reverting edits. I would like to ask a simple question to his out of context accusation: If 3 editors tried to explain me a basic rule for days, how come the guy who came after me to restore my edits explained 1 single rule, turns out he was right and my original edits were restored? There are 2 possibilties: (a) the 3 editors were wrong (b) there were no 3 editors. Go ahead and review them out of WP:REVENGE if that is what you wish, I don't think you will have any luck with it as the user who restored my edits quoted Wikipedia's policy simply and succintly: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". As for the other user who was blocked for 6 months, how is he relevant to our discussion? LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My analysis of the the diffs KIENGIR just provided:

    First link: Diff to something written by KIENGIR. Ignored.

    Second link: Confirmed that LordRogalDorn asked for a source on 23:39, 11 September 2020

    Looking at the context (the entire page as it existed at that time is easily accesses by clicking on the "Revision as of 23:39, 11 September 2020Revision as of 23:39, 11 September 2020" link at the top), I see that it was preceded by

    "Can you list the sources of the official agreements and mass return for verification? -- posted by LordRogalDorn 11:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

    "Surprising you enter into issues you don't know exactly, although they are widely known by those who analyzed the subject. E.g. [1] --posted KIENGIR at 15:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

    With a link to "A történelem tanúi - Erdély - bevonulás 1940 p 56. - The witnesses of history - Transylvania - Entry 1940 p. 56. - ISBN 978-963-251-473-4"

    (I have no idea at this point whether that ref contains "the sources of the official agreements and mass return for verification", but no doubt someone will quote the exact words.)

    Third link: confirmed that 12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDornrote:

    "It's impossible to gain consensus with a non-cooperative user who won't offer verificaiton for his concerns but at the same time is against edits whose sources have been listed. ... Since you are either unwilling or unable to back up your counter-claims with evidence, your concerns are not legitimate for they are based on empty words alone. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

    Fourth link. Did not read. It's an edit warring report, I am not investigating edit warring at this time, and KIENGIR has already established that LordRogalDornrote asked for a source. Moving on in hope of seeing the answer.

    Fifth link: In [81] KIENGIR wrote about the "1930 Romanian census" and the "1941 Hungarian census" arguing that both should have been included.

    So it appears that there is a disagreement as to what sources to use, and that there are sources for two censuses. but is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? I invite LordRogalDornrote at this point to describe exactly what he is asking for a source to. Please do so calmly, factually, and with zero added personal comments. We already know your opinions about each other.

    Sixth link: The claims "the admin warned him" is misleading. The result of the edit warring report was:

    "Result: Both parties have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. This is clearly a nationalist topic. If anyone is hoping to get support from admins, please make your talk page posts understandable. If you find that you can't reach agreement, use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is risky to charge that another editor is lying. User:LordRogalDorn, as a new editor, might be cautious when reverting on nationalist topics that have been the scene of past disputes. There does not have to be any time pressure on Wikipedia when we are trying to get the events of 1940 described correctly. If usability of sources is in question, WP:RSN is available."

    Seventh link: confirmed that at 15:00, 13 September 2020 LordRogalDorn wrote

    "You provided a source, but it is not a source that counters my original source. The only source you provided only further proves the 1941 census is misleading without the mention of mass immigration. Which you didn't do. We already talked about this but you won't listen. The 1930 and 1941 censuses were real, but so were the 1940 one. So why use the 1930 and 1941 ones when the 1940 are available and more accurate since the Second Vienna Award happened in 1940."

    I stopped there. My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source. It is clearly a disagreement about which sources to use.

    I am not seeing anything here that requires sanctions, and I recommend closing this ANI case. I advise both KIENGIR and LordRogalDorn to completely stop saying anything about the other editor (clearly doing that isn't working out for either of you), that you make all of your reposes way shorter, and that you each hake your point and then shut up rather than a lengthy back-and-forth where you repeat the same points.

    I recommend a NEUTRALLY WORDED inquiry an the reliable sources noticeboard about what censuses the include and how much WP:WEIGHT to gave to each of them. On the RS noticeboard, you should both do your best to imitate emotionless robots who are only capable of discussing facts and figures.

    Basically I am asking you both to figure out how to stop fighting and start cooperating. It actually is possible to have strong disagreements about article content yet treat each other with respect and dignity. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For the user's reaction:
    - There is no cherrypicking, I told in advance the collection is not complete, just fulfilled what Guy asked, just becase you declared something about the source which just your own sepculation and you keep telling I did not provide a source does not change the fact I provided even more.
    - "Please, provide a diff where the admin pressured" -> The link is inside the diff above, only after this admin warnings you finally declared I provided a source, whilst denying it before around 5 times
    -""highlight", is again a poor attempt" -> it was a help to Guy to guide through huge walloftext, nothing misleading on them, meet the facts
    - it is fact the three editors explained you something, it is linked as well above and traceable in the relevant talk pages, why do you think you denying evidence will lead to somewhere? Again you expect some editors/admins will not check them?
    - There is not any WP:REVENGE, you are the one who is making reports and abusing other editors
    - "how is he relevant to our discussion?" -> you mentioned that case

    - - - - -

    For Guy:
    - What you wrote in brackets, yes contains
    - "12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDorn wrote" -> denial again of the fact I provided a source, with other invalid speculations
    - fourth diff you chose not to read, (highlight) -> "such as refusing to provide sources" (so again denying I provided a source)
    - Fifth link -> I provided further source
    -""census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"" -> no, not the same things, on the other hand on this issue the user did not ask futher source since then, the current issue here that he started to deny again what I have already provided, etc., as I detailed more upwards
    - not it is not misleading, read it properly, you mistaken something:
    "LordRogalDorn, if the disputes reported here continue it is likely there will be some admin action. I recommend that you have patience when working on these topics. This is a difficult area. Thank you,"
    -7th link and your comments -> I basically agree with your summarization, however, but what is after the user's "You provided a source..." comment, it is just the user's inaccurate speculation which has been already demonstrated (the problem was he was denying this and hence the whole convesation about this occured)
    -I restricted myself to the shortest anwers possible, but when the users denying reality and I present earlier evidence of the opposite, it is nothing ad hominem, but if someone is consenstently denying the existence of diffs how else should it be demonstrated? If you have noticed, the whole discussions are about the user is denying reality, and making inverted/counter accusations towards others, while mostly never acknowledging any mistake he did, but continuing casting aspersions. Dispute reolutions are ongoing, the sources we have, the problem is the user tries to draw or invent things which are in fact not represented or related or even said, and the issues are mainly is not about which source to use primarily, but the user's problematic, self-invented assertions.
    "cooperating, respect and dignity" -> A basic rule of our community, which to the other user should follow, since I've spent a horrible amount of time of caring about him with extreme patience, explaining him, but I did not get any appreciation, just tendentious and disruptive accusations, casting aspersions, etc. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and at a point if user refuses evidence and the existence of diffs and tries to respond with manipulative denial, it cannot always continue like that.
    Summa summarum, besides all of these, I disagree with you on no sactioning, the reiterated casting aspersions about "lying" has to have a consequence (recidivious), along with this boomerang report when I was again accused about something I did not do, however the opposite happened. It's very annoying.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment thank you Guy Macon for taking the time to look into this, and I agree this content dispute should be closed without action. @KIENGIR and LordRogalDorn: even after looking at your diffs and reading your complaints, it's difficult for an outsider to understand what this argument is about. In the future, I'd suggest that you provide a short description of the content dispute so that uninvolved editors can provide their advice. Based on these two recent diffs [82][83], I assume the conflict might be summarized as follows:

    Early in the Second World War Hungary was awarded or captured ethnically mixed territories in Romania and Slovakia, and lost those territories at the war's conclusion. Since that time, the ethnic compositions of those territories have been disputed: for instance a Hungarian nationalist narrative suggests that the captured territories contained larger numbers of ethnic Hungarians, while Romanian or Slovak nationalist narratives suggest the territories contained fewer Hungarians. Today at Hungary in World War II and Hungarian irredentism, we are disputing whether to emphasize sources and census data collected between 1930 and 1945 that support the presence of more or fewer Hungarians and other ethnicities in these territories (link to sources). Outside comment is appreciated.

    Is that accurate? Please correct me if I'm wrong. If you both can contextualize these disputes, other editors can more easily help you. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A "census" is not the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return". The former is about the 1940s censues, the latter is about what happened between 1940 and the 1941 census. When we started our discussion, I originally made this claim [[84]]. He asked for verification [[85]] and I provided verification [[86]], while also mentioning the oddity of the 1941 census as a separate issue. The questionability of the 1941 census does not confirm in infirm the 1940s censues, they are separated issues with separated soruces. He did provide a source for the mass return of Hungarians after Northern Transylvania became part of Hungary, the one you mentioned and the one I confirmed here [[87]]. But no source for his refusal to accept my sources for the 1940s censuses, as I mentioned in the same comment [[88]]. Where I acknowledged his source about the mass migration of Hungarians (another subject) and was then asking him for a source on the 1940s censues (the subject where he claimed I acknowledged his source, but I didn't). As I suppose it stands to common sense that if you want to contradict a scholarly source you should do so with another scholarly source, not personal opinion or OR. Which he did not provide to this day.
    In our recent discussion [[89]], the subject was the 1940s censues, not the 1941 census (notice the flow of the discussion: "the earlier mentioned (official censuses) don't have the percentages oscillate near 50%. We have the 1940 censues which clearly states: 48% Romanian and 38% Hungarian according to the Hungarian census, and 50% Romanian and 37% Hungarian according to the Romanian census, see the connection to Hitchins" followed by "you identify estimations as censuses", this is clearly a discussion about the 1940s censuses). For which he provided no source, but said more than once that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it.
    Concerning the 1941 census with the "the official agreements and mass return", it's worth pointing out that not only the source he provided, but also his own words [[90]] speak of the Hungarians that returned after 2nd Vienna Award, a fact that he now denies and does not wish to be mentioned in the article next to the 1941 census.
    It is not a disagreement about which sources to use, because we have 2 separate issues: the validity of the 1940s censues, and the Hungarian migration between 1940 and 1941 leading to completly different numbers in the 1941 census. He provided a source for the latter, but provided no source for the former. Yet he insists that he provided a source for the former and I acknowledged it. In the discussion we have here, he misleadingly used my diff when I acknowledged his source about the mass return, to make it seem like I acknowledged his source about 1940s population.
    Edit: replying to Darouet as well. As you can probably see, the argument goes deep. But here specifically is about that fact that user KIENGIR put words into my mouth. He said twice that I said something I in fact did not say. He argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it. In summary: We were talking in an RFC about the validity of saying in the article that Northern Transylvania in 1940 was "divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians", because according to the sources I provided, it was not even. While he said: [[91]] and [[92]] that not only he provided sources in support of this, but I acknowledged them. My issue here is specifically about the fact he insisted I said something I did not say. In his defense, user KIENGIR pointed out to this diff [[93]] where I acknowledged he provided a source. But in that diff, I acknowledged he provided a source on a different subject, not on the subject we were discussing in the RFC.
    I never denied that he did not provide sources in his life. I denied that he provided a source and denied that I acknowledged it on the subject we were discussing at that moment in the RFC.
    I disagree that the dispute should be closed without action because at the end of the day, he did claim I said something I in fact did not say, even after I clearly told him I did not say it. But I understand that this is not an issue about the deeper argument, if we could call it that. And for that I agree with your summarized version for content dispute, where is the best place to place it? LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Darouet:, Thank you for your comment (however why do you think recidivious casting aspersions are ok?).

    Any outsider will deal hardly with this issue, since as you see, over 70% of the disputes and page content is about the user's misinterpretations and accusations (where you are not even sure if you provide or incite/explain evidence, will have an effect but continous denial you meet)

    Short description of the content dispute is something hard, the one who is interested sadly has to crawl through the conversation, on the other hand I am not sure the content issue should be imported here, because the result may be again 80 km long copy-paste walloftext, which we are all fed up, dispute resolution is already ongoing in the respective pages, keep them there.

    In fact, you grabbed the cutting edge diffs appropriately, however your summarization is a bit broader of the current issue (and it is about not necesarily nationalist narratives). Very shortly, the user wishes to add POV and misleading content, as well insist a Romanian majority in fact we don't know exactly what was then, but what we know the population was etnnically mixed, divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians (other side-by edits of him which I don't detail now are on similar problematic patterns). At one page there is short summary without data and after another section census data, at the other just a short summary reference cited with a link. In my edit I added the Romanian census next to the Hungarian census, thus I fulfilled the neutrality part, the user disputed the significant Romanian population remark above (I don't detail the very astonishing (?) argumentation on the talk about this), but I already proposed to write instead ethnically mixed. In the other page, since the summarization is short, does not take sides and vast details are out of scope, I don't see a reason to change. These issues are already handled by an RFC, in fact from small, flea issues an elephant have been created.

    (disclaimer, now I noticed the user posted something, will review now and update)(KIENGIR (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    @LordRogalDorn and KIENGIR: I appreciate that you both are rightfully upset about behavior. It seems to me that this dispute has gotten overly personal. I'd suggest that you take a deep breath and focus on the issue of scholarship. One possible resolution to the conflict is to describe how historians disagree on the ethnic composition of these territories, and to describe the historical and geopolitical implications of opposing viewpoints. -Darouet (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darouet:
    UPDATE:
    unfortunately the user's recent post is just what I was concerning, importing copy-paste partially outdated issues here. The user reiterated the identical WP:LISTEN issue I draw the attention ([94]), which was one month ago, the denial of again I did provided a source is false, since I did (diffs above, acknowledged by Guy the claim and accusation has been false). The user funnily is again saying I am putting words in his mouth, of course not. Blatant boomerang, as he again comes up with a diff which was a response to the root issue of this report; claiming I did not provide source 1 month ago (which I did) has nothing to with a recent issue (claiming a source for a recent issue where we have in fact sources; the lame trial of explaining out his failed accusation, that is an impossible contradiction, just reaffirming the invalidity of this report). So he starts again...
    Darouet it is not a mutual issue as you describe, I concentrate on the facts, while demonstrating the other users manipulative accusations has nothing to do with personal issues (just explained). I am the victim of this, and the issue is apparently obvious, amazing he tired again the same trick. Really boring (and in front of the whole community, and proof again he is not willing to acknowlegde anything, despite the evidence shown and even reviewed by others. So, WP:LISTEN, WP:TE, etc.).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment: This is basically a heated content dispute between good faith editors; this is an issue for an RfC or DRN, not ANI. Since I think both editors are trying to act in good faith, I think Guy's statement above is the best advice, "Basically I am asking you both to figure out how to stop fighting and start cooperating. It actually is possible to have strong disagreements about article content yet treat each other with respect and dignity." I'd add both editors should refrain from using the word "lying"; even if it is true, it is most often counterproductive to resolving a dispute. Comment on content, not contributors is sage counsel we all should heed. I propose closing this as not the appropriate forum.   // Timothy :: talk  18:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue:,
    Hi, I think you did not read well the issues, unfortunately the other editor does not practise good faith, please read the evidence entirely. I never used the phrase lying towards him, while he did around 22 times accumulated, to more editors, even after sanctioned for this. I think anyone who gives a comment should entirely read the details, the good faith approach in normal circumstances the dispute between two editors would just an overheat would be understandable, but the evidence is hardly striking, even repetitevely (even on this report). If the user won't learn from this issue, he will just continue casting aspersions and manipulative accusations, without acknowledging anything, as it has been so far (while he sees other users barely will check all the details of the walloftext because of time , so better will likely take neutral stance).
    Please reiterate Guy's summarization:
    "My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source" -> in other words, the report was a boomerang, useless waste of time.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    @TimothyBlue:, I appreciate you, but without appropriate investigation was not really helpful to insist on both editors what is in fact a problem of one.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    To be clear - your accusation that I am commenting before having read and thought about the issue is an example of what is not helpful. It is insulting and especially irritating after having spent time reading walls of text.   // Timothy :: talk  18:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue:, I never said you would commenting before having read and thought about the issue, I said entirely read the details. However, even if you read through everything, then you could not conclude what you concluded. I appreciate and respect your efforts, but not seeing what I have drawn the attention is problem, especially when I am recurrently insulted and accused, though the counter-evidence have been already presented. I hope you understand me.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    Funny how user KIENGIR complains about "outdated issues here" when the original discussion is 1 month old and he previously brought up here an old discussion I had on another page, not related to him or this discussion, only to discredit me. Where those not "outdated issues"? In the same comment, Guy asked whether is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? And invited me to describe exactly what I was asking for a source for. I replied that no and explained above that I was asking KIENGIR for a counter-source to justify his denial of the 1940s censues. In his reply, user KIENGIR is again trying to move the goalpost from the 1940s censues discussion, to the 1941 mass migration. Because he did provide a source for the 1941 mass migration, but not for the 1940s censues. And the reason I made this complain is that he argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it, for the 1940s censues; [[95] and the reply [[96]]. In the first comments in this discussion, he spammed accusation after accusation, now he claims he is the victim of this.
    In the meanwhile, user KIENGIR made a reply. I would like to remind him that in the same comment Guy said ""My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source"", he also said: but is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? I invite LordRogalDornrote at this point to describe exactly what he is asking for a source to. Which I did now.
    Also, please check the conversation after the diff [[97]] that he uses as "evidence" that I acknowledged his source in our recent discussion. Where I acknowledged his source about the mass migration of Hungarians (another subject) and was then asking him for a source on the 1940s censues (the subject where he claimed I acknowledged his source, but I didn't). He replied [[98]] "It's not about countering a source, on the other hand you should drop that fallacious assertion that 1941 census would biased" and I replied that [[99]] "If you don't have a source that counters my original source, then on what grounds you disagree with the 1940 censuses? and why you consider that disagreement valid? as in, justify your personal opinion with facts". I hope this shows I was asking him for a 1940s censuses source. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now at least the community see the inverted copy-paste accusations, as this user tries to operate with the same trick which has been already debunked at by the demonstration of "03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC))", reinforced by Guy's summarization. Even citing in Guy's other remark, which is not related to main issue of this report, but was a question, indeed answered and yes, for that has been also provided a source, even linked here, heh). This user seem never acknowledge what he did wrong, but enthusiatically continues the same style. Now at least here it is reinforced as well, pity....(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    If "indeed answered and yes, for that has been also provided a source, even linked here, heh", can you then please repost the link of the diff where you also provided a source for the 1940s census, and I acknowledged it? Just as you said I did on the RFC[[100]] page? You say there is a link here, but I haven't seen any.
    To TimothyBlue, I appreciate that you took the time to read this huge wall of text to understand the matter, I can see it's not an easy task. However, from experience, I can tell editor KIENGIR is not acting in good faith, as evidence, his attempt to put words into my mouth in an RFC discussion. User KIENGIR's defense was moving the goal post, taking out of context a comment where I acknowledged another source not related the subject at hand. It is the equivalent of we talking about Disney+ and him posting a diff where I acknowledged he provided a source on Cartoon Network as evidence that I acknowledged he provided a source Disney+.
    I came here at the recommendation of an admin, as I don't know what is the best place for this issue. But at least in this particular discussion, I am not reporting about the vailidity of his claims or my claims in our debate. I reported solely the fact that he said I did something that I didn't do. We can discuss the vailidity of his claims and my claims on other pages, this is only for his attempt to put words in my mouth. I have made serveral attempts to stop fighting and start cooperating, but please just count the number of accusations from each user and see who's the one to make more. The point I'm trying to make, is that, although I would like to and tried to on occasion, it's difficult when the other user spams ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation on a a conveyor belt. He is talking more about me than about the subject at hand.
    I also understand that the word "lying" is most of the time counter-productive, but this is not a deliberate misinterpretation of a source, it's a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing. When I knew that clearly I didn't say what he said I did, but he inisted upon it, what was I to do? Anyway, I'm not willing to continue this wall of text discussion of mostly off-topic things if this is what you fear, I wished to keep this short too, I only replied for admin Guy as he asked me to, as replying to every one of KIENGIR's accusation would ressult in even more wall of texts and off-topic, so I will only do it at the request of the admin. Admin Guy will likely come back and look at my response, as I replied his question and explained why the other user's defense is misleading. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry I am not intending to play your games further, when you try to desperately escape by rendering lengthy discussions and deteriorations from the subject. Above there is everything, your denial and competence issues are not my problem, and also others asked this thread should not be continued. Regardless what evidence you'll face, you'll just continue and try to turn the world outside of it's four corners. This is the last time a provide you a diff for a content issues which does not belong here (and already posted here anyway ([101]), which proves there was no census in 1940 (and I never had to provide anything for something that did not happen), anyway your new foxy inventions to create new claims of sources/acknowlegdement will not help you to escape from this serious boomerang issue.

    Your last walloftext blurb of yours just reinforce everything I said, you just can't stop this behavior ("Cartoon Network", "Disney+", amazing (!)

    If you continue further an administrator should block you without further warning for failing WP:LISTEN, WP:TE and the other disruptive behavior you just reinforced here. Enough, I am done here.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    The diff you provided as evidence that you also provided a source for the 1940s census, and I acknowledged it [[102]] has some problems: (1) Its your diff, not my diff, it stands to common sense, that if you accuse me that I said X, you should provide a diff where I said X, not one of your diffs. (2) Your source is off-topic, I was not talking about the 1930 census whose ressults were published later. In fact, if you look, you will notice that the numbers from the 1930 and 1940 census are different. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    KIENGIR, even if LordRogalDorn is lying, be the bigger man. Concentrate on the issues, not the person with an alternative viewpoint. As has been said, it is possible to have diametrically opposed views to another editor over an issue, but still be respectful of them and their right to express their view. There have been good suggestions in this thread re resolving the issue keeping WP:NPOV in mind. Stating both sides of the issue and letting the reader decide is a good way to go. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @LordRogalDorn: here's some info/advice: first, just so you're not under any misapprehensions, not everyone commenting here is an admin (I'm not); the editors who have commented here so far who are admin are Dreamy Jazz and Mjroots. (Admin highlighter helps distinguish.)
    Second, there comes a time when you've tried to work things out with another editor and you're just hitting a brick wall. You have reached that point in this dispute. Just forget about that editor; you don't need to convince every single editor here that your edit is an improvement. You need consensus, not unanimity. So just work the content dispute resolution system, instead of trying to convince one particular editor. You asked: "When I knew that clearly I didn't say what he said I did, but he inisted upon it, what was I to do?" Ignore it, that's what.
    Third, go make the edit you want to make, whatever it is. If it's reverted, don't reinstate it or edit war. Instead, go to the talk page and start an WP:RFC proposing the edit (or if it's not a matter of one edit, proposing whatever it is you want to propose). Make the RFC question short (like one sentence if possible) and neutral (like "Should this edit made" with a link to the diff of the edit that was reverted), and then post a !vote, "Support as proposer..." with your reasons. Let anyone who wants to oppose, oppose, including Kiengir. Don't respond to Kiengir no matter what they write in that RFC. Let other editors voice their opinions, discuss it with them if need be, but don't WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and basically let the RFC take its course and decide the outcome of the content dispute. While the RFC is running, go work on something else. If you make another edit elsewhere that is also reverted, repeat this procedure for each such edit. (Except try not to launch too many RFCs at the same time.) If you decide to follow this and have questions about formatting or whatever, feel free to ask on my talk page. Lev!vich 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with Lev!vich. Let me be blunt. Both parties have been asked by several people to stop saying things about each other. If either of you continues this behavior, even if the person described is as evil as you say and even if everything you say is 100% true, it is extremely likely that an administrator will simply WP:TOPICBAN you because you have shown that you are unable to control yourself. It won't be me that topic bans you -- I am an ordinary editor, not an administrator -- but if I see further personal comments I may end up recommending such a topic ban. Consider this to be a golden opportunity; if you suddenly start acting like an emotionless robot who only (and briefly!) talks about the issues at hand without saying anything bad about the other person and they keep trashing you, chances are that any sanctions will be one-way. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at the edit history of both of the above users after they got the above advice:
    KIENGIR:
    • 22:14, 16 October:[103] This single edit contained a fair amount of saying bad things about LordRogalDorn, but this was less than an hour afters my comment, and they may have not read it yet. I checked the entire history after that without finding any comments about LordRogalDorn other than asking me to look into this.
    LordRogalDorn:
    • 07:14, 17 October 2020 [104]: "The other user is taking sides by attempting to go for a middle ground logical fallacy, arguing that because "we don't know" it must be "near equal", not only this is OR, but sometimes halfway between truth and a lie, is still a lie. He tries to hide his POV by claiming the NPOV version is POV."
    • 07:59, 17 October 2020[105]: "This discussion was already over when the other user started making the same fallacious arguments that were already discussed and disproved in the other page. I'm aware it's impossible to reason with him due to lack of WP:COMPETENCE and failure to WP:LISTEN. When he made the same accusations he repeatedly makes on other pages, dispite substantial evidence of the opposite being clear for everyone to see, I merely gave him the same reply. Once that was done, there was no reason to play his game of off-topic mirror accusations. "
    I would also note that LordRogalDorn is now in a fight with Borsoka: [106]
    My recommendations:
    It appears that KIENGIR is capable of disengaging and no longer posting personal comments, but LordRogalDorn is not capable of disengaging and no longer posting personal comments. So I recommend:
    [1] A topic ban for LordRogalDorn from the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed.
    [2] A caution issued to KIENGIR saying that we appreciate him disengaging and that we expect him to continue talking about content and not about other editors.
    --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoax/Self-promotional edits

    A lot of hoax and possibly self-promotional edits are coming from the range 103.203.92.0/22 in television articles. Has been going on since at least mid-last year, the user has been hoaxing dates of non-existent show closures, connecting unrelated channels and adding an obscure cable service to TV channel articles (likely self-promotion/spam). Needs a range block at this point, has been hopping IPs, been reverted multiple times but still continues disrupting. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Experiencing disruptive editing, and possible witch hunt by user:Onetwothreeip

    Along with some other editors, @Onetwothreeip: recently put me and several other editors under a Sockpuppet investigation here. The process was absolutely chilling, though it made me realise I needed to do a better job of letting editors know that I have a semi-regular wiki meetup. But now I am beginning to wonder if it's part of this particular editor's pattern to both delete contributions that I and others have made and to pressure editors to accept those deletions. I have experienced this editor as increasingly abrasive, disruptive and antagonistic. I have also felt pressured to undo my anonymity - which I'm trying to protect as I work in the Australian Parliament, a conflict I declared some months ago declared here and declared here and declared here

    Let me offer some context. 1. I connected with this editor after I proposed some changes to to page. I thought it was good manners to ping him and other editors as they had been involved on the article before. I am open about my connection in the talk page discussion, as I should be. But I experienced being pushed to disclose who my immediate boss is here which, of course would all but reveal my identity (some of these MPs only have a couple of staff). I felt quite worried by this, but decided to hold my boundary and keep to the processes that wiki offers.

    2. Soon after, I noticed that this editor was deleting large amounts of the articles where I had declared by connection such as here - with the reason given that quotes are not useful and sometimes without a reason being given at all. On another article, large cuts were made because the content was considered subjective, though it was all given balance with extensive citations. On one article about 150kb of deletions were made [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] The reasons given are often dismissive, so this 30kb cut was made because "there's not much that's salvageable." Another cut - noting that this is an article about about a SAS officer turned MP - had all the content about the subject's service with the SAS completely removed.

    3. These were bold edits being made, certainly, and, at first, I decided to revert then push to make improvements as you can see here. But then I thought I would try to simply move to a new section of the talk page - I alerted all the people I could see had been interested in the article and some other editors I know from a meetup who are interested in the subject too. At first the interactions went pretty well. Then things got bogged down, mostly around the area of notability. I was being told that various images and facts and quotes weren't notable. It took me a week to discover - from another editor - that the subject has to be notable. A given photograph or fact doesn't have to be notable. That's when I sensed that things weren't quite right. This deletionist didn't actually know the policies so well at all. It was just about deleting content. The language from the deletionist editor began to change, saying to someone else "this is a lie". It got aggressive. Once other editors began asserting the clearer understanding of the policies, and we were moving towards a consensus, then the deletionist editor seemed to excuse themselves from the discussion - to hit the nuclear button.

    4. A fortnight ago the deletionist editor instigated an SPI investigation against me and other editors. This case appears to have been closed after many hours of work by admins. As one admin noted that these SPI cases can be used to drive off other editors, particularly those who are not in the majority on these pages, namely women. It's been from that point that I've become worried that's what's really going on here. An editor is not seeing the content they would prefer and they are driving off junior editors - and using mass deletions and an SPI investigation to get their way.

    5. Sensing a lull, I took a moment to thank some admins for their time today on my talk page and that's when I noticed that user:Onetwothreeip is simply an agressive, disrespectful editor, operating in that unsafe area of harassment. Seconds after I posted my thanks on my talk page, I got a message from this editor saying "the investigation isn't over" - never mind that admins had said it was closed. I was having my own talk page patrolled and it feels a lot like stalking. When I asked that editor to please be respectful and just not interact with me, certainly not on my own talk page, for a while — this editor posted another aggressive message.

    When you ask someone to leave you alone, give you some space, and they come back five minutes later, there's something badly wrong. I am not asking for any kind of bans, but I would like I would like some support from admins on handling this matter. I am very happy to have admins do their work, even if I'm the one under the magnifying glass. I would then simply like to go back to improving articles, taking on constructive feedback, making suggestions, understand policies better. I have tried to disclose my interests and connections as best as I can (which I've done voluntarily). I don't think I deserve to get extra harassment because I've tried to do the right thing. And I really think we need to draw a line at what feels like talk page stalking.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is a disappointing overreaction and not the right forum for this. I will be as brief as possible to respond to these points, but if The Little Platoon is here for the legitimate purpose of improving the encyclopaedia then I would welcome them to continue contributing. They have gone between being friendly and unfriendly towards me before.
    The sockpuppet investigation found what I had suspected, that multiple editors were engaging in off-wiki collaboration to influence certain potentially contentious articles, without making this known to other editors. I agree with assuming that this was done in good faith, even though they have a self-declared connection to the subjects of the articles. If the sockpuppet investigation process was actually unsettling for anybody, then that is certainly unfortunate, but this is certainly a necessary function of this project. I would not want even those who are most blatantly here to disrupt Wikipedia to feel that we are out to publicise them. To be clear about what they are referring to as a meet-up, it's a group of people who know each other off-wiki editing on the same articles.
    I've certainly asked, as others have, for further information about their self-purported conflict of interest. I've never had any desire to know who their "immediate boss" is. Saying that one works in the Australian Parliament is just not saying much at all. It's clear now by their implications that they work for a member of parliament, but they could just as well have worked for the parliament itself.
    This editor clearly disagrees with their bold additions of content being reverted. That's understandable, although I certainly had not and would not revert everything they have added. That's purely an editorial dispute though, and not something that relates to conduct. It would have been much easier to quickly revert the articles to versions before their edits, but I took the time to remove only the objectionable content to preserve anything appropriate they added that could remain in the article. I think "notability" and "due weight" are concepts that have been mixed up here.
    As I have told The Little Platoon before, the investigation I opened was split into two, and one of those has closed. The conclusion was that there were multiple people who know each other outside of Wikipedia editing together on certain articles, and to assume good faith.
    For the first time, I today left a message on their talk page. It is true that I had their user page in my watchlist, as I have for several others, and thirty editors have my user page on their watchlist. I do not appreciate being accused of harassment and I find that quite objectionable to describe these interactions in that way, and I hope The Little Platoon reflects on that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onetwothreeip: Can you explain this to me? I read this report and the SPI and I'm thoroughly confused. This is what I understand happened, please correct me where I've got it wrong:
    1. There is a group of (4-7?) editors who are editing Austrialian politics articles
    2. At least one of them has admitted/confirmed that they work in the Australian parliament and has declared COI
    3. The group of editors have admitted to off-wiki coordination of their editing on Australian politics articles
    4. At least some of the editors weren't even editors before they were recruited to join this group
    5. A CheckUser has confirmed 4 of the accounts, the other 3 are "additional information needed"
    6. Nobody is sanctioned, the SPI is closed without action
    Do I have that right? #6 is really blowing my mind. What am I missing? I understand about Wiki-meetups, but an employee of an MP recruiting editors to edit articles with which they have a COI seems like... well, sanctionable? Lev!vich 19:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And so the witch hunt continues.The Little Platoon (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Little Platoon, do I have it wrong or is what I wrote correct? For example, you have a declared COI for the article Tim Smith (Australian politician), and yet the history shows you have been repeatedly reverting/reinstating content at that article. How can raising these concerns be a "witch hunt"? Lev!vich 20:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: That's correct, although the investigation for the four that are confirmed are closed, and the investigation for the other three is still open. Most if not all of these editors were not editors until this year. I was certainly surprised to see that the process did not find this to be particularly alarming, but maybe SPI is not the right place to report off-wiki coordination? I reported it there because I wasn't sure if it was sockpuppeting or a coordinated group of people, but I figured that the consequences would be similar. Is a place like ANI where coordinating is better handled? I was also surprised that The Little Platoon brought the issue here, as it only further publicises the off-wiki coordination. There is also very clearly a lack of understanding about the responsibilities of editors with a conflict of interest, other than to disclose it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I know next to nothing about SPI and I don't doubt Amanda and GN's judgment there, but like you I was also surprised to read this report here. Declaring COIs in accordance with policy is great, but then off-wiki recruiting of friends who join an RFC (like Talk:Andrew Hastie (politician)#Request for comment on draft "Political views" section for the Andrew Hastie (politician) article) seems obviously problematic. Now that this is here, I'm looking forward to reading what others think. Lev!vich 21:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: I think your question was to me? You're correct in saying there's a meetup of editors, we help each other write on about a dozen different topics, from fashion to welsh preachers. I have a particular interest in Australian politics. I've helped others with their articles. A few of them have helped me improve articles that I have worked on previously. We started the group to get better at doing wiki on all the topics we're interested in. You're also correct to say that I went to the COI and disclosed my interest many months ago. I felt like that was the right thing to do, even though I don't feel it's okay to fully break anonymity. You're not quite right to say the group formed to edit on Australian politics, if you want to look at all the articles people have worked on, you can see the interests are eclectic. And the wider wiki community was fine with that until we got to politics. Hence the heat. And, in my experience, what seems to be harrasment-like behaviours from others. It's been really unpleasant. The recruitment thing is off. I'm not a member of any party. It's people interested in learning and supporting each other as writers in this format and putting good facts out there on wiki. So, you're half right on your point 1, absolutely right on point 2, mostly wrong on point 3, sorta right sorta wrong on point 4 (I don't think it's unusual to to help people who don't have a wiki account to create one), and totally correct on points 5 and 6. I note that you're having a good sniff around my previous edits - which feels a lot like "an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred." That is a witch hunt. I don't expect to change your mind. I am here to ask the support of admins from what I experience as uncivil behaviour.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my intention to make anyone feel harassed or the subject of a witch hunt. You posted this report here, and as a result, you can expect that editors will look at your recent edits, as well as those of 123IP, and read the SPI and referenced article talk pages, and look at the edits of the editors participating there. What you're calling "sniff around my previous edits" and "harassment", I call "investigating the report". I'm glad you're editing here and recruiting others to do so, and I'm glad you've been forthright about declaring COIs. My concerns are (1) what looks to me like edit warring at Tim Smith (Australian politician) and (2) what looks to me like canvassing at Andrew Hastie (politician). Lev!vich 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: Fair enough. I'm just a bit burnt by all this. The reason I'm copping all this hostility is because I pinged this hostile user in the first place, as someone who had edited a particular page in the past as someone who had edited a particular page in the past. I invited everyone I could see who might be interested on the Hastie edit too. I invited everyone I could see who might be interested on the Hastie edit too. I'm trying to do the right thing here. Wiki actually has it as a recommendation to let past editors of articles and those who are interested know. That's what I've done. And I've declared my personal interest. I wasn't made to do it. I wasn't found out. I declared it. But the pitchforks and torch fires bear down all the same.The Little Platoon (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's anything wrong with pinging editors who have edited the article; but -- again, correct me if I'm mistaken -- four of the editors you pinged are using the same computer you are using. Lev!vich 22:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: Almost right. The SPI found that four other editors had shared an IP at points, but not with me. I know some of them share some space. And that's where I actually do feel like a bit of a dummy. There's advice on the article about wiki meetups about telling the community if you're doing a meet up and sharing an IP and I hadn't actually bothered to read up on that. So lesson learnt. But the bit where I'm kicking myself is that these younger editors, who have great interest, but no real connection to politics — they all have different interests — have all had a bloody fright and now seem entirely disinclined to make further contributions. And I hate to say it but I fear that was the intention all along. I don't think the seasoned editors on pages like this have any idea how intimidating and upsetting a formal investigation can be, with threats of immediate blocking, all out of the blue, not a note of warning or gentle suggestion. Just elaborate accusations of which William Stroughton would be proud. I think it's not at all okay. The Little Platoon (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What had alerted me to something unusual happening was that most of the accounts they had notified into that discussion had not edited that article before. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to be all pitchforks and torches, but that just seems like an important distinction. Lev!vich 22:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not usual at all to organise people who you know off-wiki to form a consensus on an article talk page. "The wider wiki community" was simply not aware of this until now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Huldra re-inserting into Ganei Tikva his OR transliteration of the Hebrew name into Arabic

    Final warning issued to Crash48 about observing the WP:ARBPIA porhibition on new users. El_C 18:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [116] [117] As I explained in my edit summary, the spelling "غني تيكفا" is not used by any sources whatsoever; yet, User:Huldra insists on re-inserting it, violating WP:NOR. --Crash48 (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the second diff above, Huldra's edit summary is "this is on Palestinian village land, and you should not be editing here". I don't know the guideline about {{lang-ar}} usage but it is common for place names to be given in a variety of relevant languages. I suspect the second part of the edit summary is referring to the fact that Crash48 (talk · contribs) has under 250 edits and does not satisfy WP:500/30. The attitude shown at Crash48's talk shows that a topic ban might be in order. Any uninvolved administrator can arrange that and I'll look more closely later. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the dispute is what is actually the Arabic name of the place (does it derive from the Hebrew name or not), which is a meaningful question and should be discussed at the talk page of the article. However, it is not happening for the time being. I have extended confirmed protected the article, because it indeed should not be edited by non-extended-confirmed users anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This new editor, Crash48 may need either a warning or a topic ban. He is uncivil and disruptive as he rejects discussion when he thinks the policy is on his side. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New User:Crash48 disruptive and uncivil behavior in Israeli-Palestinian topics

    The user going by the name "Crash48" has made his first edit this May. So far, he has made 230+ edits in the English Wikipedia. Most of his edits are unreferenced, but that is completely forgivable for a new editor. The problem is his disruptive and uncivil behavior.

    This user has shifted his focus to Israel related articles last month. Most of his edits are clearly in good faith and many of them are constructive and it seems that by now he is providing a reference to information he is adding, which is a step in the right direction.

    The problem arose with a series of edits earlier this week, in which he removed the Arab transliterated names of Jewish-Israeli places. On a personal note, I don't completely disagree with this, as the I/P area is full of POV pushing, often done in good faith. User:Huldra has reverted some of these on the 50/300 rule that maintains that only extended-confirmed editors can edit articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. here you can see the discussion between the two. Crash48 asks Huldra how does the 50/300 apply in that case and explains his edits. Huldra gives her reply, and Crash48 decided to report to this page against Huldra.

    I have also confronted Crash48 for these edits here and asked him to cease them. His immediate reply was uncivil and claimed his edits are backed by "accepted practice" and demanded me to revert my edits. I asked him what is that accepted practice and he linked to me a Wikipedia guideline and demanded again I revert my edits. I confronted him about the policy, stating it doesn't necessarily back his edits. he replied again to my comment, and again, demanded I revert my edits. Seeing that a discussion with the user is difficult, I reminded him that edits must also be backed by a consensus, and he doesn't have one right now, he should open a discussion and reach one. He replied by saying there is a consensus and referred to a list of articles whose lead sections are similar to his approach. I told him this is not a consensus and he as a new editor should read WP:CONSENSUS and offered help, to which he replied in a sarcastic and uncivil manner.

    Since this user is unwilling to cooperate with users who don't necessarily agree with his own views, and when confronted with two experienced editors on the field he dismissed the first and filed a report against the other I think some action needs to be done because the I/P field really doesn't need any more disruptions. There are conflicting opinions all the time between different editors of different backgrounds and opinions, but the work is done through discussion and consensus and not threw policies in the face of editors.

    The user does not seem to have a strict and disruptive POV. In other editors, the user does acknowledge an Arab connection to places as seen here, here and here and in the more recent examples, he also provides reference. In another case , he proves to be able to make sourced and constructive edits.

    At first, he must accept not to edit articles related or closely related to the I/P conflict until he will be an extended-confirmed user. Secondly, he must agree to continue editing while refraining from the disruptive and uncivilized discourse and if necessary, get a warning or a temporary ban.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, WP:ARBPIA does not cancel out WP:NOR; so, complying with Huldra's demand that I don't edit the article in question myself, I brought the issue here, so that Huldra's blatant OR gets removed from the article by those qualified to do so.
    As for Bolter21's message at my talk page, anyone can see that it was anything but civil, so I imitated his own patronizing tone when answering him. Despite his claimed experience, he was evidently ignorant of WP:NCGN. Furthermore, this page says in red at the very top, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Bolter21 has not done so, demonstrating once again his disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines. --Crash48 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reminding.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Why is the article subject to ARBPIA? If anything, at all, would be ARBPIA, it would be the contents that are applicable to ARBPIA. But this was a content dispute on what the Arabic name is or isn't for the town. There is no reason to sanction or to place the article under ECP. This is more of Huldra going into Israeli place names and trying to put it under ARBPIA sanctions, when again, if any should apply, it would apply to just one sentence of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One clue is that all the usual suspects are involved, along with a returned user. Then there is Ganei Tikva: "formed in 1949, located on the land of the Palestinian village of Al-'Abbasiyya...". That means there will always be ARBPIA conflict. From what I have observed on articles unrelated to this topic, it is fairly common to include names used by other groups even if they lost. OTOH that might be nationalistic POV pushing, I don't know. But it is reasonably common from what I have seen. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Noclador disruptive editing and WP:REVENGE deletion

    Can someone please intervene? A few days ago, I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, about an article created by User:Noclador. After lengthy discussions, I asked Noclador to no longer ping me at that AfD[118], to which they replied with two more pings[119][120]. I then muted them[121].

    And four minutes later Noclador nominated Container Cup for speedy A7[122]. A revenge nomination if ever I saw one, and a rather unnecessary escalation of the situation. Fram (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (merged duplicate section about same subject here)

    User:Noclador has been WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 to the point of being disruptive and indicated an intention to nominate for deletion pages created by those of us who disagree with him/her: [[123]], when warned not to do this by me: [[124]] they indicated that they wouldn't propose pages created by us for deletion: [[125]] but has carried through with this here: [[126]] which is a clear case of WP:REVENGE. Mztourist (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Answer

    This is clearly not in any way a WP:REVENGE issue, even though Fram and Mztourist try to frame it that way to shut down a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989.

    Context: User Fram tried to mass delete military organization articles at the end of the Cold War in September. WikiProject Military History editors argued forcefully at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle to retain these articles. Fram withdrew this mass deletion request, and then returned to it in late September at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination) without informing the WikiProject Military History editors. Out of the more than 1,500 editors of said project none were able to comment as the creator of this article has been banned (for unrelated issues) and other editors were unaware of the discussion. After succeeding with the deletion of (admittedly poorly sourced and incomplete) Swiss Armed Forces article Fram proceeded to the Austrian Armed Forces Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989. Again not informing any of the WikiProject Military History editors. Suggestions to source the article via the Austrian Armed Forces University, Austrian Armed Forces monthly magazine, Austrian veteran associations, the Heeresgeschichtliche Museum in Vienna, etc. were shut down by Fram, who will not accept any source. He clearly doesn't not intend to accept any outcome but the mass deletion of all Cold War military organizations he tried to force through in September. Mztourist is arguing that 1989 wasn't a particular important year in the Cold War terms and if shown that it was a key year of the Cold War, he changes argument that military organizations aren't important anyway, and when shown that military organization of the Cold War are important, he reverts back to saying 1989 was important anyway.

    Container Cup: as I pointed out to Mztourist in the link he provided "I am certainly not going to nominate them for deletion, as I trust your judgement on their value." and "I am also not going to nominate the articles about obscure artists and scientists Fram created. None of them seem notable, but as I believe wikipedia should include as much knowledge as possible I am not nominating articles for deletion.". And I did not nominate any of their Vietnam war or artist biography articles for deletion as I had clearly stated. I nominated the article Container Cup, which in my view fails in many ways: it's WP:RECENT, it was broadcast on a minor Belgian TV Channel, one of the sources is said TV-channel itself, no other articles links to it (not even the channel that broadcast it). In my personal view it doesn't satisfy the notability standards of wikipedia.

    Conclusion: The discussion at the Austrian Armed Forces is deadlocked as Fram and Mztourist refuse to engage in a constructive, good faith discussion to improve the article. Both, Fram and Mztourist, complained that I informed other WikiProject Military History editors about the ongoing deletion discussion (Fram, Mztourist). I pinged Fram when I was refuting his arguments, which he didn't want to hear, so he muted me. Fram and Mztourist both escalated this discussion to ANI, even though in my view the failure of Container Cup to meet wikipedia notability standards could be contested by Fram on the articles deletion page. In summary: WikiProject Military History editors forcefully argued to retain these articles, Fram and Mztourist nonetheless continue their attempts to delete them, without WikiProject Military History editors being made aware of their attempts. Fram and Mztourist are impervious to good faith constructive suggestions to improve the article in question, and Fram and Mztourist escalated two unrelated deletion discussion to ANI, in an attempt to force through their viewpoint at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989. noclador (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Noclador's wall of text above mischaracterises the discussions at AFD and repeatedly accuses Fram and me of hiding the AFD from Milhist users which is completely incorrect and further demonstrates bad faith editing to try to defend his/her page and their actions.Mztourist (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I already explained this in the other discussion where Noclador raised this, but not only is such notification not required, but the deletions (both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989) were listed in three milhist project subpages dedicated to listing AfDs (for the Swiss one here, here, and here), after I had announed in the closure of the earlier AfD that "I will as suggested renominate individual articles instead". I can't really help it if interested editors don't have the articles on their watchlist, and don't have the AfD alerts on their watchlist.

    Noclador claims "This is clearly not in any way a WP:REVENGE issue", and then goes on to state that after having withdrawn the threat to nominate my articles on artists and so on for deletion, they found another type of article in my contributions which they could nominate without going back on their promise. How this isn't a case of looking for revenge is not clear. Perhaps their own attempt to do "a malintent and spurious nomination", as they described the AfD. Note that looking at Google News would give a load of new reliable sources about the Container Cup in Flemish newspapers and reliable websites, as a new (Student) version of it was held[127]. So even the WP:RECENT claim doesn't hold water.

    Finally, I invite everyone here to go to that AfD and form their own opinion of the sources, the arguments, the relevance of arguments, and so on. Fram (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you, Fram. I did just that. Being independent of any knowledge of military structure but an able reader (that's an opinion) who can use common sense while following policy here at wikipedia, I see why the nominator brought this article up for deletion. There are NO in-line sources of any kind. I have managed to read through the AfD and understand the arguments. Without sources the AfD is no contest. Likewise, independent reading of the statements above ARE a mis-characterization of the discussion as indicated by Mztourist. Go read it yourself. And before anyone jumps on me, Mztourist and I have had debates, lively and sometimes heated, so don't just assume I side with anyone. Ask them if you doubt it. In this case I agree with Fram and Mztourist. Add independent (not directly linked to the subject) reliable (at least some knowledge of the subject) sources that can be verified (anyone can access it; with other sources that can possibly confirm) and you may have a case to keep. No sources means an automatic delete. I think that's pretty clear. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tsistunagiska I and other editors have offered a list of possible references, all of which were rejected by Fram. For military articles of all types we have been using the military's themselves as references. I.e. the US Army organization is referenced to the US Army website. British Army, French Army, Spanish Army, Belgian Army, Dutch Army, Polish Army, Greek Air Force, US Air Force, Dutch Air Force, Italian Navy, US Navy, US Marine Corps, Canadian Armed Forces, etc, etc, are all referenced primarily by their websites, magazines, publications and press communiques. If Fram had accepted that for military organizations we have to reference back to the military's own publication, we could have by now referenced the article. Fram outright refuses to even consider this offer. As for Mztourist - his intransigence that 1989 was in no way a relevant year in the history of the Cold War, and that historic military organizations are per se irrelevant makes any discussion futile. If either of them would be willing to cooperate and collaborate referencing and improving the article could be achieved. As it is now, any work on the article is moot as the very basis for it and all possible detailed sources are reject. If you have a suggestion how exit from this impasse, please I would be interested in such a suggestion. noclador (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noclador Easy answer? Add in-line sources to the article. I am a warrior when it comes to articles on Indigenous people and Women related topics but even I can't fight for those articles when there are no independent verifiable in-line sources. This article has nothing. You can't wait for other editor's, even those who nominate for the AfD, to add references and sources. You add and then have them and others review it. You may even get some to change their mind if the sources are good enough. But we can't get anything from nothing. I am sure that's in a policy somewhere or it should be. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noclador and Tsistunagiska, the article and AfD should be discussed at the AfD. This report is about Noclador's refusal to honour a simple request to stop pinging me in that discussion, and his subsequent revenge nomination for speedy deletion of an article I created (a speedy which was swiftly deletedrejected). I'ld like to just highlight one aspect of Nocladors reply here: "If Fram had accepted that for military organizations we have to reference back to the military's own publication, we could have by now referenced the article. Fram outright refuses to even consider this offer." For all articles, notability (which this AfD is about) has to be demonstrated from independent sources. So yes, I refuse to discard this basic rule for this article. I have not stopped anyone from adding references to the article or otherwise improving the article, not in words and not in actions; but if the sources that are offered at the AfD or added to the article are not independent, reliable, in-depth, published, and actually about the subject of the article, then yes, they won't change my opinion that the article should be deleted. How this justifies your actions is not clear though. Fram (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram I assume you mean "swiftly declined." It's hard to avoid the impression that this was a bad faith nomination, given that A7 explicitly does not apply to TV programmes.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, corrected. Fram (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This complaint is about Noclador's disruptive editing and WP:REVENGE deletion, however he/she is Wikilawyering to try to make it about page sourcing to try to avoid sanctions. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition

    ——– The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –——

    I'm sorry to have to bring the following incident to attention here, but 3RR and the absence of other editors in the discussion leaves me no other choice.

    Now that his request for deletion of the article Cheminformatics toolkits seems to be doomed to fail (4 keep votes, 1 delete vote), user The Banner first redlinked all the items on the list that is part of the article. Red links imply that the items are indeed notable, which is contrary to The Banner's reason for the deletion request, so he must have gotten new information in the mean time. (He later said that by redlinking he "was anticipating the keeping of the article and comply to the wishes" of other editors.)

    Three days later, and this is my main concern here, he added the word "notable" to the definition of cheminformatics toolkits. In the edit summary he used the tag Reverted[!]. Now the article starts "Cheminformatics toolkits are notable software development kits". Because I thought that adding "notable" to the definition was not helpful, and indeed only confusing, I reverted the edit, but The Banner would not and still does not comply, even after my explanation on the article's talk page and on the deletion request page.

    I believe that the addition of the word "notable" to the definition is undesirable and unwanted. If we would keep it in this article, we could add "notable" to every single definition in Wikipedia articles. The Banner's defence, and in fact the discussion as a whole, is not lengthy, so I ask interested sysops to read his argument, which I find unintelligible, to say the least. I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered. Please prepare for The Banner's accusation that this is all just a personal attack. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    The word "notable" is a selection criterion for the list to avoid spamming. The Banner talk 16:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But I must say that I would appreciate a two-way interaction-ban. The Banner talk 23:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Eissink, I strongly suggest you retract your comments above. I'm inclined to block you for making personal attacks and generally casting aspersions, and I also can't make out exactly what your complaint is above. But instead of me going nuclear and blocking you now, since you're obviously frustrated, try to explain just what you think is problematic right now and don't carry nlwiki issues here; this is enwiki, not nlwiki. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed I've been frustrated, and I wouldn't have mentioned nlwiki or even have interfered with The Banner if he had not, two months ago, felt the need to start goading me, intimidating me in the very first contact exactly with a reference to nlwiki. The latter I have already mentioned on this board, in a post that I didn't start, but that didn't trigger any sysop to give The Banner a warning to not import problems, nor was he sanctioned for haunting me here. The practical problem today, which seems solved by an editor that at least shared my conclusion, is described above and I don't think I can make it more clear than I already have. My involvement in that deletion request was the last residue of our encounters from the last few months: I had already decided not to interfere with The Banner's movements anymore, but this particular discussion hadn't come to an end yet and I refused to flee from it. I expect that The Banner will take action to his word and ends interacting with me, immediately – since I had already planned to do so, that would mean there is now effectively an interaction stop, and as far as I'm concerned there is no need for someone else to impose it. The case is then closed, as far as I'm concerned. I understand that my words were strong and for the sake of resolution I have removed them. I hope this has cleared things up and I thank you for your reply and your understanding. Eissink (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Two AfD's started by me with input from Eissink. I have no clue why he showed up there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal. The Banner talk 13:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you chose to show up in discussions only because I was there first, as I have explained already several times. Now please stop forcing me to react on you again and do as you said: avoid further interaction. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I prefer a two-way interaction ban. The Banner talk 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The behavior and bludgeoning at those two AFD conversations, in combination with similar behavior in this report, merits attention. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    non-involved non-administrator comment A/K/A sticking my nose where it probably doesn't belong. Eissink's previous block was for personal attacks and harassment and 16 months ago they pledged "... I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore" in the block appeal Huon accepted. Since then, I warned them about a personal attack this July and GizzyCatBella likewise warned them in August as did El C, which Barkeep49 further emphasized. EEng also felt it necessary to make a non-templated note about Eissink modifying another user's comments. This is all in addition to the apparent animosity between this user and The Banner. I think that their unblocking pledge from last May and their record of personalizing conflicts since then needs to be taken into account in evaluating this request. WP:ROPE is probably also relevant. I regret the necessity of digging into this history and bringing up old events but their habit of blanking their user talk page may obscure some of what should be included in this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't let this boomerang on me, please just give me a final warning now, Eggishorn and other moderators. I regret every single of my editorial behaviour that led to the warnings you mention, and it was not my intention to obscure those warnings (but it might have worked as obscuring for myself, I realize now). My relation with The Banner is complicated, since we have quite a history elsewhere, and it wasn't me who started stalking the other here. I fully accept a permanent (this is to severe in these matters - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20) block whenever some administrator in the future thinks I crossed a line again, and I will not hesitate then to inform them on the final warning, if I get one, but please give me the opportunity to continu working on my draft and future articles (already published, just in case - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20), and just give me a final warning now. Thank you, and I'm sorry for giving trouble. Eissink (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Since I was mentioned here, I'll drop my two cents. If I were a decision-maker, I would issue a clear and definitive final warning and administer an interaction ban as the counter person (The Banner) favoured. I believe that Eissink will eventually learn from this; My opinion is based on my prior discussion with Eissink in the past after I felt uncomfortable with his comments towards me. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New account, Lin Jinhai with suspicious non-referenced BLP additions in mass quantities

    This user seems to add Alma maters of dozens of Chinese BLPs without any reference to indicate their validity. Account is only a few days old. I thought this was very strange, and wanted to bring into the attention of those who have been around here longer to look into this. @Lin Jinhai:, are you using some database of sorts to get this information? Transcendental (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply back User Transcendental: I'm adding these alma maters based on what is said and referenced in the articles themselves. For example, if it says Joe has went to (Toronto University), then I add he went to Toronto university in the alma mater section. I'm adding these based on what the article says, no suspicious motives here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lin Jinhai (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I see what you mean. The articles do state that the individual went to these universities. I didn't notice at first due to the fact that some of these BLPs appear to not reference the education history. Clearly you are doing this in good faith. My apologies for the confusion, Transcendental (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is for discussion of "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" (emphasis reproduced from above). Thus, this report seems inappropriate. What I do think is suspicious is a user who claims to be new, has fewer than 500 mainspace edits since registering on 25 September (99% reverts), and yet seems to be fully familiar with Wikipedia policies, procedures and jargon. 109.144.28.106 (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Both now blocked. Also were reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adamjames99. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Numerous drafts and unnecessary redirects, as well as several mainspace versions. I don't know if more versions or additional sock/meat puppets exist; Adam Benjamin James and Adam Benjamin James (Australia Humanitarian) are the main articles. User has ignored policy and warnings for the past four days, and is only here for self-promotional purposes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Uncivil editor Mark Lincoln

    Mark Lincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been grossly abusing another editor despite warnings, etc. This is to request an indef block.

    Here is a (possibly incomplete) history:

    What really gets me is that by now the abused editor had made it plain that he had serious off-wiki troubles, but Mark Lincoln didn't give a damn, he just kept piling in there. Mark then went off in a huff, and the abused user asked me to bring it here if he returned. He just has:[128][129].

    Please can you indef block the guy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tide rolls: When I let the abused editor know I had posted here, two other highly experienced editors sent me public thanks. Over and over the guy does not listen, does not pull back; what action would you suggest to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or are you suggesting we sit back and let those policies burn? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant no criticism of your posting here and, to be honest, I see your point. It's just my opinion that the diffs you posted don't rise to the level of abuse. I checked my response to be sure, and no, there was no suggestion to let policies burn. Tiderolls 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Um. Whether or not I might have chosen the wrong word is beside the point. Have you no suggestion as to what should be done to make our policies stick? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The vituperation of some is astounding. I have made it very clear I am not going to be editing Wikipedia any longer. It is perfectly ok with me if Wikipedia prefers to honor the unsupported opinions of some of the persons who have pull while ignoring carefully researched fact. I was taught long ago that History was a serious subject and there were Historiographic standards. If Wikipedia is happy making the opinions of those who desire to make their wishes more important than proven reality that is Wikipedia's business. I have no intention of disputing the desires of Wikipedia to propagate said opinion as fact. That some of the persons who have the ear of Wikipedia are still pursuing their actions in this matter is most droll. It is also incredibly vindictive and perhaps infantile. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I was deluded enough to believe them while it has become abundantly clear they are not honored by Wikipedia if they are inconvenient to the opinion of those persons that matter. Their retribution is still being pursued despite my having made it clear that I have no intention of continuing to edit Wikipedia. In fact I recently refused Soumya-8974’s invitation to edit Wikiproject Rocketry despite a life long interest in the subject and my possession of a large library on the subject. For those wishing to beat a dead horse for their personal gratification, I say go ahead. I could care less. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cypriot Nationalist

    BLOCKED
    User in question blocked for sockpuppetry. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Cypriot Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making repeated accusations of vandalism while restoring unreferenced content (see example 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), as well as calling me a a "bit slow" and a "troll" for daring to enforce core content policy. FDW777 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Like I have already said to you multiple times (For the M16 and Exocets at least as that is what this started by), the video was a perfectly valid reference YOU simply chose to disregard it and tried being smart about it, I linked you at least 3 sources to do with the Exocets and you still erased it and even IF I was in the wrong, how does that explain you deleting most of the page? Ive literally had to spend half an hour bringing a few of the things you vandalised back and the Wikipedia admins will see that you erased most of it. In fact most of what you erased was referenced, so yes you are a troll because you are clearly trying to start something up in order to get a rise. Additionally, even if you were to use the unreferenced argument, from the stuff you deleted, 90% of it could be found in virtually any GreekCypriot military parade youd find on youtube or at this link: http://www.army.gov.cy/el/page/home. Since you want to do this I will also link the sites for the Exocets and the video which clearly shows the M16 Rifle.

    M16: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRSHBZsS-X4

    Exocet missiles: https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/02/08/cyprus-signs-e240-mln-french-missiles-contract/

    https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26314/MBDA_Sells_Mistral__Exocet_Missiles_to_Cyprus__French_Media#.X4n7OdBKiUk

    https://www.financialmirror.com/2020/02/07/cyprus-signs-e240-mln-french-missiles-contract/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot Nationalist (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cypriot Nationalist, you need to read what vandalism is not. You also need to stop edit warring and start citing reliable sources for all challenged edits. It doesn't matter if a source could be found, if there is no source then the content can and should be removed. You have fewer than 50 edits, and you are throwing your weight around as if you are an established expert with extensiove knowledge of Wikipedia who is dealing with a neophyte. In fact, FDW777 is reasonably experienced, so you might make more progress by asking for advice rather than through belligerence. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lima Bean Farmer

    Lima Bean Farmer ("LBF") is terribly keen, but really a bit of a problem. Already pageblocked from List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, LBF has previously initiated an attempt at an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements attempting to override the substantial community RfC that ruled all political endorsements that led to this policy:

    1. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people.
    2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
    3. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".

    Despite this clear knowledge of the consensus position, LBF continues to add references by the dozen to self-published, unreliable or affiliated sources, basically copying in lists from random websites that don't meet RS, with rapid-fire additions of multiple names ([130], [131], [132],[133], [134] and dozens more) often drawn form the same primary sources. I don't think LBF applies any discrimination at all to source selection ([135]). A classic example would be this edit adding "Truthout" (reliability on a par with Daily Kos) as a source [136], followed by a series of about 40 edits adding others from the same list [137].

    In total LBF has made over 1,300 edits to that article, and it is not an exaggeration to say that hundreds of them have used primary, affiliated or unreliable sources (e.g. blogs). Over half of LBF's 4,500 edits have been to endorsement lists in this campaign cycle, virtually none of them discussed. The edits by Bnguyen1114 and Mirokado, the other top contributors to the page, seem to be individual, each cited to a different source, with no unreliable ones in the sample I looked at.

    I think LBF needs to be topic-banned from mainspace edits to campaign endorsements for the duration because cleaning this up is exhausting and attempts to remove those which lack independent sources, LBF reverts. While it's likely that a clear majority of Wikipedia editors hope thast Biden wins on November 3, Wikipedia is really not here to try to make it happen - but LBF, I would argue, is. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Eissink (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • I have as an individual arbitration enforcement action topic banned them from American Politics for 3 months - which should get us through the election and also hopefully any post-election shenanigans. An endorsement only topic ban just felt like an invitation to disrupt other election related elements and so I went with the broader topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Barkeep49, why?!? Guy Reverted a whole bunch of edits on this page which became unsourced. Since then, I have not added anything from blogs or any primary sources. That was a different editor. You’re confused on this. Plus, why is the art source not reliable? I didn’t see it in the list of deprecated sources. And I don’t think it’s primary, is it? My point is, I’ve been making very useful contributions and trying to improve as an editor. Look at all of the edits I’ve made today. I added Alex Rodriguez and Jennifer Lopez based on CNN. I added Justice democrats based on Fox (the news organization, not the entertainment or whatever we call the unreliable branch), a bunch of tribal leaders from a news source which I’m not sure why it was deleted (I have reports from several Native American news sources reporting the endorsement), added some singers who were reported as being part of the “Team Joe Sings” which supports the campaign (reported, not on the Joe Biden campaign website), and removed some photos and deleted some names that weren’t attributed to a source that said they endorse. Have you seen the contributions I’ve made to Trump’s endorsement page too? I don’t know how you can count (I edit from an iPhone) but it must’ve been hundreds of additions. While I do have a personal preference in this election (as most Wikipedia editors do and should) I do not let this affect my editing on Wikipedia. I even added to Jo Jorgensen’s page. I am not here to influence the election or attempt to sway Wikipedia one way or another. In fact I’ve done almost the opposite of that (I’ve deleted tons of sources that were just twitter or YouTube or Facebook from all endorsement pages including presidential, senatorial, and members of the house) for both parties to be specific (or more if there was another party running). I hope this is enough to convince the community that I should not be blocked from American history entirely. Once again, after Guy or Jz or whatever that editors name is removed the primary sources, I did not add any primary sources back and I apologize if the art or even the native articles are not from primary sources, but I would like to be given the chance to add new sources. I don’t know why making an rfc to discuss this would affect this decision. As soon as I learned those sources were primary I stopped adding them and started an rfc. Just because you don’t want to revisit the subject doesn’t mean you can block me over wanting to. I’m here to build the encyclopedia clearly, not just add whatever I want. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Lima Bean Farmer, I see a massive discussion on your talk page regarding OR, SYNTH, and other content policies in one election article (and where some very experienced editors try to help you). I then see a credible report of further issues presented here by Guy on a different but related article. I don't, at all, doubt your good intentions to help improve our coverage, regardless of political party. I do, unfortunately, have cause for concern about your ability to do it within our content guidelines for this topic area. And thus why I enacted the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Barkeep49, I very much so see your concern. However I’d like to state that the original research was based solely on me not interpreting the term “oppose” correctly. Plus, I have figured it out on the talk page with the other administrators, taken their advice (you can see all of their advice, I addressed all problems), and I am still not editing there. In fact, I made a request over a day ago for someone to add something and it has been ignored ever since. I have always taken the term endorse very seriously. Check my talk page again, see the barn star? Even today I deleted five endorsements due to the source not stating they are endorsements. I remove non endorsements just as quickly as I add endorsements (maybe even quicker, easier to add then delete). As for the sources which I added, I did not add them back, another editor did. As for the painting and the tribal endorsements, no one has yet to tell me why they were deleted. If it was because the source was not reliable or independent, I have other sources which are that also list these endorsements. I request that you lift this ban and I will offer you the condition that I agree to discuss the reliability and independence of all sources before adding any content to a Wikipedia page regarding this election in 2020. Does that sound fair? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I’d also like to point out that Bnguyen1114 is currently blocked from that page, so they must’ve done something wrong too. Just saying, since it was used as an example. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          Note that I replied to this user at my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lima Bean Farmer: I haven't looked that carefully at your history, but what I've seen is enough to cause significant concern. You've been blocked twice from List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign, and have only recently been allowed back on that article talk page. I see a bunch of experienced editors trying to counsel you on your talk page about the problems with your editing there. Despite that, I see similar problems with the List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. If you are adding an uncertain source like Native News Online or TruthOut and you have historically had problems judging the reliability of a source, it's probably better to ask before you add 50-100 people sourced to those sources. I assume you understand that not appearing on WP:RSPS and not being a primary source does not make a source a reliable independent source, and especially with highly contentious areas you should have some ability to judge source reliability. Also your style of editing adds to the problem. If you are 50 people in one edit source to the same source, at least they can be easily reverted if there is a problem with that source, which doesn't negate the problems will ill-judged additions but still makes it a little easier to handle. If you add 50 people from one source in a series of 50 edits it can be a lot harder to revert especially if there are edit conflicts. I appreciate you're editing from a mobile device & even on a desktop resolving edit conflicts can be annoying. Yet if you're worried about edit conflicts that actually fairly proves the point you need to be certain if you're adding 50 people there won't be a need to revert all 50 because the source isn't suitable. (And there are intermediates which may help e.g. adding 10 people in one edit.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nil Einne, as much as I would like to disagree with you, all of the points you made are valid. I apologize for the style of editing and I get how that can be annoying for editors who want to revert my edits, but it is almost impossible to add more than a few people on an iPhone. The page regularly reloads and deletes everything and I can’t edit more than one category at a time. But that’s beyond the point. I have agreed to, in exchange for the ban to be lifted, use the talk page to discuss with (experienced) editors before each addition of a person to an endorsement page. Even a NYT or CNN article, I agree to still discuss and verify addition before it is made. To be honest, if someone just told me this to begin with (discuss before adding) I would have been doing this for a long time. I would like to both agree to not do this again, and also would like to offer a formal apology to all editors who had to spend their time fixing my errors. I am genuinely here to both build the article but also keep it verifiable (I have deleted many non endorsements, twitter/social media endorsements, and excessive photos). Please consider my proposal. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban violation

    I think LBF doesn't understand what a topic ban means, since these edits (made just hours after the topic ban was enacted) [138], [139] are clear violations. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted. JzG and I have both left stern warnings on the user's talk page. Probably even a single further violation would result in a block. --Yamla (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Red Rock Canyon, I did not and I apologize. I thought it was like a block where not like literally everything has been taken away. It won’t happen again until I get unbanned. Now could you please look at my proposed unban request/offer? Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism assistance at my talk page

    Hello, could someone semi-protect my talk page please? I'm getting a shower of angry messages from an anon editor. Thanks. Captain Calm (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi-protected your talk page and blocked the main IP harasser. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Captain Calm (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editing by User:Francis Schonken

    This is just about the most ridiculous dispute I have come across in a long while on Wikipedia. It started with this edit by Francis Schonken. Removal was silly, I felt, but fair enough, there was no source for the famous theme of The Sicilian Clan by Ennio Morricone being an arrangement of Bach's BWV 543. It's obvious from a listen, so {{cn}} tag would have been better, but whatever. I provided a source with [140].

    Then the silly stuff begings. FS claimed that the source didn't verify the claim [141]. I assumed good faith, restored the source [142], telling them how to find the mention (search "BWV 543"). They again claimed this failed verification.

    I then went to their talk page, leaving them the full quote, which I willl reproduce here

    Go here. Search for "BWV 543". Find

    The influence of "serious" classical music is present throughout Ennio Morricone's musical output, and the composer often amused himself with these serious references, often citing and arranging works from the classical repertoire in his film scores: for example Wagner's famous Ride of the Valkyries for the theme of the "Wilde Horde" from My Name is Nobody (1973), and Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan (1969).

    Emphasis mine.

    Which was promptly reverted, which is fine. They then started a talk page discussion where they are making mind-boggling claims that Bach's BWV 543 referred to by France Musique is not what everyone understands by BWV 543 because the word "Fugue" does not appear in the FM article, and that it is original research to say that BWV 543 is BWV 543. Thing are getting silly, so I left a message at WikiProject Classical music, with a neutral summary of the issue, which they then reverted as canvassing.

    And this is where I'm having enough of this nonsense, because AGF is not a suicide pact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Headbomb, what? The BWV number is unique. There's only one BWV543. The WikiProject message is not canvassing. This is, indeed, bloody silly. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Now tagged with an OR tag!, courtesy of FS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've come across some edits made at List of compositions by Franz Schubert where it appears Francis Schonken has created articles in order to make the article appear smaller in size than it really is, by splitting the article into smaller articles and using templates to put them back together in the main article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The idiocy continues at Arrangement. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed a personal attack. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's no PA. Restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing-adjacent discussion
    This is hardly a personal attack. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's a mild one. It's why I only removed it, to try and prevent this thread from spiraling in unhelpful directions, and didn't say anything to you directly about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally we don't treat uncivil descriptors of someone's actions ("what you're doing is is idiotic") as being the same thing as a personal attack ("you are an idiot"). While I sympathize with trying to enforce civility, I think you're understating the significance of deleting a portion of someone's comment and replacing it with a boilerplate {{rpa}} template, which only serves as scathing "scarlet letter" that brands you as having committed a great behavioral wrongdoing. Especially if you're not even involved in attempting to mitigate the incident, and are just popping in to redact someone's comment, which at best is what you describe as a "minor personal attack", and then move on, and then when questioned, deign to suggest that such a drastic action was you being "lenient" and that the editor should be thankful that you didn't do anything more. Either take up the situation or don't, but dropping by just to enact some cherrypicking civility enforcement probably derails an AN/I complaint far more than said incivility ever could. Just some feedback on this situation. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC):::::[reply]
    As long as Headbomb has the opportunity to remove the template, I find the action to be appropriate. It would be helpful if Barkeep49 had suggested they could remove the template in their edit summary. The template is still better than the uncivil remark. I would add that I found the remark to be more uncivil than "this is idiotic" but less uncivil than "you are an idiot". Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not some "respect my authority" sysop and so if Headbomb wants to remove the template and either mae clear that they were talking about content and not an editor (as Swarm suggests) or just go with something like "It continues ..." I have no objections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A well-earned scarlet letter that will hopefully deter all editors from referring to other editors' comments as "idiocy". Lev!vich 03:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe in Scarlet letter's. Again this was something so mild I didn't even feel the need to leave a personal message to Headbomb about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're free to believe whatever you want, "scarlet letter" is a term referring to a stigma bestowed on someone, which branding their message with a redaction template indicating misbehavior certainly does. Moreover, you can claim all you want that you took the "lenient" route, and yet that doesn't change the fact that doing what you did is a fairly strict action, far more strict than simply leaving a friendly note on a talkpage. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: I notice that you also didn't choose to address the underlying conflict but instead chose to address something you felt needed saying. One of the great boons of editing Wikipedia as a volunteer is we have discretion about how we choose to invest our time and I think we both demonstrated that in this thread. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we get back on topic here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Back on topic, the "neutral" WPC notice wasn't really that neutral. "Please see [link]" would be better; it's not too late to replace it. FS should have replaced it with a neutral statement instead of removing it altogether. Everything else, e.g. whether various statements fail verification or not, is a content dispute. Lev!vich 03:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can all argue all day and all night that a "scarlet letter" is deserved, but we're now nine messages deep into a side exchange about the censorship of a frustrated editor invoking the term "idiocy", on the basis of "preventing this thread from spiraling in unhelpful directions", whilst simultaneously having made no progress on the complaint itself. In other words, we're not even hung up on the complaint, nor the complainant's civility at this point, we're hung up on the tertiary complaint of an admin's dubious civility enforcement. We have an admin not accepting feedback and instead accusing another admin for being unhelpful for raising the point that they were being unhelpful. It's comical. As I said, I'm all for siding with and enforcing civility, but there are times we must determine whether taking stern civility-enforcement actions in response to a frustrated editor is actually a net positive to the project, and clearly, in this case, this was counterproductive. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I did consider your feedback. As I noted above if Headbomb wants to remove the template and either mae clear that they were talking about content and not an editor (as Swarm suggests) or just go with something like "It continues ..." I have no objections (apologies for the typo now produced a second time). I read it differently than you and conceded that your way of reading could have been correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway, I think the main idea here was tendentious Bach arrangements. Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think Francis Schonken's objections are wrong and, frankly, bizarre. The provided source definitely and unambiguously verifies the claim being made. Anyway, here is a book in which Morricone himself verifies it. That should settle the matter. Reyk YO! 08:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a content dispute, so why here? Morricone is no reliable source for what he did, no? What he did was a citation from the theme from the Prelude, not an arrangement of the piece, not even of the prelude (missing the counterpoint), so the removed fact is indeed wrong (as Francis explained on the talk). And I agree that it is trivia for that article, - how about adding it to Morricone? - You probably know that Francis banned me from his talk page, but he often - as here - has the facts right. Discussion style is a different matter, but can admins help with that? Ask Boing and Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (Sorry folks, not getting involved. I'm just going to listen to BWV 543 instead, which should be far more conducive to a restful Saturday. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
      enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Gerda Arendt, not sure it's a content dispute, it's a behavioural issue. Francis Schonken is being disruptive and WP:POINTy, and really needs to stop I reckon. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      How? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Gerda Arendt, I'm not sure why Morricone's statements about his own work are unreliable. You'll have to explain that one to me. I also think it would be a trivial factoid in the Ennio Morricone article (he wrote a lot of stuff and had a lot of influences on his work), but useful as an example of BWV543's appearances in popular culture. If the only issue is quibbling that we don't like the word arrangement then the solution is to pick a more fitting word, not to forbid all mention of it. Reyk YO! 12:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't say that all Morricone said about his work is per se unreliable, only that what someone says about his own work is not necessarily holy scriptures. What one person would call arrangement, another might call a quotation, and a third stealing material. I'd be with the second. Taking a bit from a work is obviously not an arrangement in the sense of our article arrangement, even if a source or two use that term. Back to "true vs. verifiable", a general Wikipedia problem. In this case, had both parties observed WP:BRD, meaning going to discussion instead of edit war, others might have noticed sooner. I only noticed when it arrived on Francis' talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Primary sources are generally reliable for non-contentious material about themselves. However that doesnt mean 'factually accurate'. A primary source can still be wrong when talking about themselves. So if a statement from a primary source about themselves is clearly incorrect, either deliberately or by the primary source being unclear, its not a realiable source at that point. Gerda has explained the technical issues that mean the original removed fact is incorrect, but this sort of minor niggle is usually a result of people talking in more general terms than the technical definitions actually allow for. Personally its a trivial mountain out of molehill territory for me as well, but if an editor removes something because it isnt factually accurate, the onus, even on so annoyingly minor a point, is to provide a citation that explicitly supports it or rework the material to the point where it reflects the source. Not being an expert on classical music, I am happy to defer to Gerda here if they say its wrong, its almost certainly going to be wrong. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Content disputes do not belong here. This should be closed and the dispute should be moved to the article's talk page. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue reported here isn't the content dispute, it's the tendentious gaslighting behaviour of FS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to assign motives to come to that conclusion. I see an argument about content. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that a source's mention of BWV 543 (which has no 'official' name) isn't really a mention of BWV 543 because the source doesn't call it the same as the Wikpiedia article, as well as reverting requests for comments on a relevant Wikiproject is clear tendentious and gaslighting behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any reason to discredit the France Musique page; this is a nice list of names including Marc Voinchet and Pierre Charvet. It seems to be of the same caliber as NPR here in the US, or the BBC in the UK--no good reason whatsoever to cast aspersion on them, as was done on the talk page. In other words, the "failed verification" tag was incorrect, and doing it again was obviously pointy; FS chose that tag and not "unreliable source", so they'll have to explain that at least twice they missed "...and Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan (1969)", or refused to look for it--or disagreed that, eh, BWV 543 meant something other than BWV 543, or however I am supposed to read that semantic juggling act. But welcome, Headbomb, to the wonderful world of Francis Schonken. I wish you much patience. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I've already encountered that world, and it never was pleasant. But this episode crosses a line. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP keeps pushing spelling variant with deceptive edit note: "Fixed typo" continuing

    Since the last discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#IP_keeps_pushing_spelling_variant_with_deceptive_edit_note:_"Fixed_typo", 2a00:23c7:559f:cb00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been blocked twice but hasn't stopped. Even if it hasn't read Talk pages, it already knows it's causing trouble because it is repeatingly editing the same articles that has been reverted.

    Its activity cycle has a 7 days interval, which day-of-week of its "weekend hobby" shifts monthly, so I guess 2-days-blocks are ineffective if done right after its edits, perhaps even got unnoticed. Better cover its activity cycle. --Wotheina (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest referring to the IP as "they" rather than "it" (the latter being dehumanizing). JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The same /64 range was blocked twice back in September for the same reason, but for short times. I've now blocked the /64 for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about a just-now archived Imelda Marcos discussion with voted-upon proposals just awaiting action

    Erm... the Imelda Marcos discussion about the Imelda Marcos page got automatically archived (at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Proposal_1_(Jtbobwaysf)) while people were voting on proposoals. Apparently there was a 72 hour lull. I think it was unclear when exactly a consensus would/could be achieved. May I ask whether there are next steps for this, or whether we have to start all over again? The potential for whitewashing seems too significant to just be let go of. - Chieharumachi (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: -Object404 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Chieharumachi, just revert the archive. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG:, Hi. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean/how to do that in this case. Do I just go to history and click undo? - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chieharumachi: Just a heads up, I've asked the same thing here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Lengthy_ANI_discussion_archived_without_a_resolution. HiwilmsTalk 14:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Meninistagainstvegans

    Judging by their first and only edit[143] and their username, it's clear Meninistagainstvegans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE. Beryllium Sphere (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User has now been blocked by JzG. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted copied content from a half dozen articles--pretty much everything they've contributed looks suspect. A lot of rev/deletion may be necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Casting aspersions, personal attacks from Normal Op

    Normal Op was previously topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs (ANI report), during which they were blocked for socking to circumvent the ban. They were later unbanned with the advice that they steer clear of pit bulls.

    Since they have been unbanned, they have been uncivil and repeatedly cast aspersions and personal attacks against other editors in this area. They must recent and most egregious is in an AfD discussion where they insult another editor, Doomsdayer520, by saying, among other things At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off.. In previous discussions related to other animal matters, they have baselessly accused me of lying, cast aspersions at Cavalryman, and accusing him of gaming the system, and cast aspersions at Atsme, baselessly accusing her of COI.

    Additionally, they have submitted a lot of articles for deletion that resulted in keep votes:

    while this isn't a problem in and of itself, combined with the hostility and previous problematic behavior in this area suggests WP:GAMEy behavior.

    Since their topic ban, they have been warned a number of times 1, 2, 3 about their behavior, but it is still persisting.

    I'm requesting that Normal Op's topic ban on dogs be reinstated and extended to animals in general. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have seen Normal Op around the project and they are a net positive. I do hope that they would listen to the two admins who recently warned them: 1, 2. Perhaps they can agree to take a step back because none of this looks good. Sometimes we all get hot and need to simmer down. Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, PearlSt82, if you're going to write a report on me then you should get your details right (like where another editor corrected you about details on this ANI post [144]). The "sock" you mention was a houseguest who visited me in the month after the 2019 ANI and was not me and wasn't "during" the ANI. Further, I have submitted a detailed UPE report on you, proving your connection to the industry. Your own edits [145] in a very narrow window of topics (pit bulls, dog bites, breed-specific legislation, and fatal dog attacks) are the longest running single-purpose account I've seen in Wikipedia. Your COI on "pit bull topics", along with another editor who has connections to a (bully-breed) dog breeding business, are the complete source of my troubles with "pit bull topics". As for AfDs, of course there are AfDs where some were deemed Keep; that's the nature of community consensus. I'll remind you of your own Support !vote at my request to un-topic-ban: "Normal Op has come a long ways in ten months and has made a great deal of positive contributions to the project, and has clearly been learning the law of the land. I think the most important takeaway is that Wikipedia is a community-based consensus project, not a battleground of who is right and wrong, and their recent contributions have shown a great deal of evidence of this." [146] Normal Op (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd love to read your evidence of my connection to the industry, because there isn't one. I did indeed support removal of your topic ban, but your edits and personal attacks since have been disruptive despite multiple warnings. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also it completely strains credulity that a houseguest would edit only in articles related to dangerous dogs and animals while you were topic banned. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you need to get your facts straight, PearlSt82. I wasn't "topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs" (as you wrote in your first sentence of this ANI post). And not only did my houseguest NOT edit in "dangerous dogs" topics (as you assert), but looking at the list of articles they did edit [147], 49 of the 50 topics I had not edited in before, and only about 3 have I edited since then (a year later). Their single edit to the one article I had edited, was to add a new fatality of a baby boy (mauled to death by the family pit bull) that happened during the time of their visit with me. [148] You have been targeting me since early 2019 when I first discovered the Dogsbite.org article; a topic on which you have put an extraordinary effort into defaming since at least 2015 [149], nay, since your very first edit on a dog topic in 2013 [150] (over 5 years before I even came to Wikipedia). Normal Op (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Correction: Pardon me, I made a mistake when I said your first dog article edit when in fact it was your second. The first edit was also on the same topic, however, [151], as was the third [152] (which included a most curious choice of citation). Normal Op (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album), Normal Op called for the article's deletion. I disagreed and recommended that Normal Op read some WP policies on inappropriate nominations and how to improve an article rather than delete it. You can see my comments for yourself. Normal Op construed this as a "personal attack", but then got far more personal with me, accusing me of: "all you have to contribute to AfD discussions is to insult nominators", "you weren't willing to do [the work] yourself", "you should consider staying away from AfD discussions lest you run off more editors", and "your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off." That looks much more like a personal attack toward me, and it also shows no knowledge of my body of work at WP. I'm an adult and can handle it, but truly wonder if someone who reacts to a minor disagreement in this fashion, and there is evidence that it happens a lot, can contribute constructively to a volunteer community. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Normal Op can and does make positive contributions to the project. On the flip side they can and do assume bad faith in the contributions of others, particularly if they take an opposing position to Normal Op’s but, as shown in my second interaction with them linked above, sometimes where absolutely no opposition exists. Their casting of aspersions against Atsme, someone who openly reveals their true identity and even provides links their profiles on other platforms, is particularly egregious. I am unsure what would remedy this, they have received multiple warnings. Cavalryman (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Emir of Wikipedia griefing my Talk page.

    Sorry to bother anyone about this but Emir of Wikipedia continues to edit my Talk page after I've requested that they no longer post at my Talk page. I believe this activity falls under the user space harassment. Wikipedia:Harassment#User space harassment

    It's time-consuming and discouraging to encounter these messages and have to undo them upon logging in and I would like guidance or support in ending it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I was restoring the edit of an admin who was reverted without explanation. Please do not accuse me of trolling, without evidence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!)[reply]
    Which administrator - proved a diff? And why is this your duty to monitor another editor's talk page? Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I was on about Guy Macon. I got them mixed up with JzG who signs their signature with Guy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More importantly, they are fully allowed to remove notices from their page unless it's a declined unblock request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't add User:Guy Macon to this ANI because after he edited my page and I then asked him to not edit my page he stopped. In my opinion, he was a dink no big deal, I asked him to stop, he did. End of it. In the case of Emir of Wikipedia I asked to Emir of Wikipedia to stop posting to my page but Emir continued to return and post to the page, becoming a nuisance. Continuing to post to my userspace, after being given a direct request to stop is in fact harassment per the way harassment is defined on Wikipedia. This is why one but not the other is included in my ANI. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment about pinging Guy was not directed at you, but at Lightburst. I will not restore that OW tag again. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) In this edit[153] I wrote "(Please read WP:BLANKING, which says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: [...] The "Old Warnings" {{ow}} template.)"
    At the time[154] that was what was in the guideline.
    TheMusicExperimental deliberately violated the guideline by removing the tag.[155]
    I raised a question at the help desk:[156]
    As a result, the prohibition was removed.[157]
    If you don't like the existence of the {{ow}} template, then take Template:OW to WP:MfD. Until you get it deleted, please don't criticize other editors for using it as intended. I personally think it is entirely appropriate for any editor who deletes all warnings.
    I question the legitimacy of a user who declares that anyone who posts a warning is a troll and forbids all user warnings. I also question the legitimacy of a user tells everyone who posts a warning to stay off their talk page. Wikipedia policy is that warnings can be removed, not that an editor can preemptively forbid any warnings.
    That being said, if an editor specifically asks you to not post to their talk page, you should not post to their talk page. If the result of this is an ANI report that starts with "normally I would have warned this user but...", too bad. You brought it on yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why on earth is Emir of Wikipedia lecturing anyone on archiving their talk page, when they themselves delete warnings without archiving [158]? They should at least add {{ow}} to their own talk page,no? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have sent the OW template to MFD. We really need to not be using that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not the purpose of {{OW}}. It primarily serves to replace IP talk page discussions, and currently transcludes hundreds of thousands of times for that purpose. It would be a bad idea to suddenly create hundreds of thousands of broken templates on existing IP talk pages. BD2412 T 00:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding by Baprow

    The issue is connected to a previous one I raised a few weeks ago here. While that one was archived due to inactivity (the user stopped all editing shortly after I filled it) they have come back up again when I edited President of the Valencian Government earlier today (diff). The user has reacted by editing a number of non-related articles which I had edited earlier throughout the day (note that their edits had little to do with my own edits there, but rather, were related to their own stance in the Talk:President of the Valencian Government discussion).

    It should be noted that the user has not edited Wikipedia at all for about three weeks, nor has engaged in any discussion. Rather, this seems a reaction to my edits at President of the Valencian Government, in an attempt to piss me off or to prevent me from conducting any edit in that article, which seems to be continuing at a behavioural pattern of ownership over that article's contents. This is openly disruptive, disgusting and creepy and needs to be stopped ASAP. Impru20talk 19:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, as I understand it, we are all free to collaborate on Wikipedia for as long as we want and in whatever way we see fit. And that's what I do. You have made and you make edits similar to mine adding timelines and I don't think you consider yourself a bad contributor.
    I would also ask you to stop interpreting my words. I have never claimed ownership of any item, no matter how much you insist. I believe that the changes I add improve the articles. And I would also ask you to lower the tone. I do not think it appropriate to be offended by alleged offenses when you use the adjectives "disruptive, disgusting and creepy". I am as tired of you as you are of me and I have not used that verbal violence.
    Also, you still maintain that my changes are wrong because "things in Wikipedia are done as I say". And it is not true, as I have already shown. And you continue to insist on breaking the visual aesthetic, with names in black and names in blue, as in the table of the presidents of Aragon. You do not want to reach any kind of compromise, such as looking for an intermediate size that satisfies us (or leaves us equally displeased) and you do not want to give in to maintain the slightest visual coherence.--Baprow (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with you, guy? You have been absent from Wikipedia for three weeks. Then, when I chose to implement an edit at President of the Valencian Government that I had already announced three weeks prior, you have gone to immediately edit that one as well as those other articles that I had edited today! You have refused to discuss anything for three weeks (and indeed, for most of the time we have interacted), and you only react whenever an edit is done in "your" article. Don't play like it's my fault or something when I've attempted to seek a compromise on the issue. Instead, you have reacted by bringing such issues to every article I edit!
    This is disgusting and sick. Not just that you seemingly have that article on your watch 24/7 so that you can react whenever someone edits it. You are absolutely obsessed with me and with your absurd aesthetical issues, and have now come to the point of hounding me because I don't agree with those. That's fucking creepy, pal. Creepy, disruptive and disgusting. Leave-me-alone and stop chasing me and my edits throughout Wikipedia! Impru20talk 22:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That you have tried to find a compromise? Are you really saying that? When? When you said that all my edits were wrong? When you do not even agree to follow your own "majority rules" with which you justify yourself to say that I am not right and you are? When you made your only settlement proposal, I accepted it and you immediately retract what was said? Stop reporting persecution and making up offenses (by the way, you say "my" edits, so according to yourself is a claiming of property).--Baprow (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Baprow, when you say "we are all free to collaborate on Wikipedia for as long as we want and in whatever way we see fit." you are flatly wrong. There are rules here for collaborating, and people that can't accept and follow basic rules are generally blocked from editing. It isn't a free-for-all. For the most part, this is a content dispute, which should be handled on the article talk page, perhaps an RFC since it seems to be a single issue. I will say that returning after a break and reverting without a summary is kind of a jerk move, however. That said, you are both a bit overly excited over this color issue, which is another reason why holding an RFC is a good idea, to get outside input on the colors. And remember, we do have a WP:Manual of style that must be followed as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was not saying that this was a free-for-all, but that the time that is put into the contribution and what is done, if it is up to the rules, should not be belittled, as if he were a top-notch editor and I a second-rate editor. As for the discussion, I have tried to reach compromises but the matter is tremendously complicated. He accuses me of being a persecutor and dogmatic, but the truth is that he has been inflexible, he has accused me of many things, he has cynically mocked me and now he is insulting me.--Baprow (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Visual comparison

    Ximo PuigAlberto FabraFrancisco CampsJosé Luis OlivasEduarzo ZaplanaJoan LermaEnrique MonsonísJosep Lluís Albiñana
    Ximo PuigAlberto FabraFrancisco CampsJosé Luis OlivasEduarzo ZaplanaJoan LermaEnrique MonsonísJosep Lluís Albiñana

    The first timeline is the one that I consider better. The years go from four to four because elections have been held every four years since 1983 and so it can be seen at a glance whether a term ended abruptly or corresponds to a full legislature. The other user says that on Wikipedia the years always go from 5 to 5 or 10 to 10 and therefore it is wrong to do it that way. I do not know if it is true.
    In the table that he defends, there is an acting president who only lasted a week (and with the powers shared with the president of the regional parliament). In my opinion, it shouldn't be listed. He agreed to consider at a given moment that the presidents would not appear, if Olivas' term would be shortened (he was interim president before becoming official). I accepted and made the change, but he withdrew his proposal.
    Anyway, I asked him to put Sánchez de León with the same blue color as the rest (now she does not have an article in this wikipedia, but she could have it in the future and thus we advance work by creating an access), but he says that he does not see any visual incoherence in which some names are of one color and others of another.
    The size is another point of discuss (I wanted 900, now 850, and he always 800 because according him it is the correct way in this Wikipedia).--Baprow (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think ANI isn't the place for content disputes like this one. That said, the claim that on Wikipedia the years always go from 5 to 5 or 10 to 10 needs to be substantiated by policies and guidelines. Was that the case? El Millo (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I needed visual support to explain the situation easily. Regarding the question, the other user never quoted me a specific rule. He just showed me many examples of timelines where that division was followed and said that it proved his point and that the division 4 to 4 was enterely wrong. When I showed him other timelines that were different in size, aspect and division than he defended, which denied that supposed "correct way of doing things", he ignored me and he even said that the fact I used a similar argument also proved his point.--Baprow (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it relates specifically to the content of the artcle, let's continue the discussion at the article's talk. El Millo (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but I think that would be useful clarify if there are or not these rules of time division and size and colors because if he insisted on this position the agreement is very difficult.--Baprow (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=984075323"