Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Saflieni's personal attacks and other disruption

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

---

• In Praise of Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Saflieni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:AN3#User:Buidhe reported by User:Saflieni (Result: impasse--no good reason to block one editor but not the other)
• Talk:In Praise of Blood#Reception section and the dialog below it.

A few days ago, Drmies suggested that I to go to ANI due to this editor's behavior.[1] I try to avoid dramaboards but the disruption has continued so I feel I have no other option.

• Personal attacks: They repeatedly accuse other editors of lying, eg. "Stop making things up. It's clear that you're not interested in creating a balanced Wikipage at all ..."[2] "Drmies condones every lie you and buidhe have been telling about me and about others. What's your agenda?"[3] (Sadly, that is not the complete list). Even an uninvolved editor politely asking them to be civil, without referring to any past incident, results in the accusation of "pollute my Talk page with false accusations"[4]
• They also seem to have issues with WP:CIR, as Drmies pointed out here[5] and here[6]
• There is also an issue of WP:OWN behavior, implying that other users need to get Saflieni's permission to make edits: "I have asked you to discuss further edits on the Talk Page. You didn't."[7] and "Restored previous version. The edits were not agreed upon."[8]

Earlier today Drmies stated, "you [Saflieni] are contributing nothing at all to this discussion or to this article"[9] which pretty much sums it up. Despite multiple warnings and requests to change their behavior,[10][11] it has gone on. Because Saflieni has become a net negative on this topic and has prevented other editors from moving forward with improvements to the article, I am proposing an indefinite topic ban from the topic of In Praise of Blood and its author, Judi Rever. (t · c) buidhe 11:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Drmies went ballistic [12] when I tried to correct an error of judgment by using the phrase "you are wrong" before explaining the misunderstanding [13], referring to [14] [15]. It went downhill from there [16] and I've been insulted several times, him talking down at me: "As for your 'question', you can ask it until the sun goes down," and, without considering my explanations, telling me: "you may not be competent enough in working in a collaborative environment". Then when I complained on his Talk page about his jumping to conclusions and unfriendly attitude, he accused me of "gaslighting" [17]. This is not the conduct one expects from an administrator, according to [18]. But he continued on [19] where Drmies suggested a consensus on a disputed phrase by ignoring my input on what the literature says [20] and ignoring my suggestion to read the relevant section in the source. [21]. It went on by Drmies siding with the other two by deliberately misunderstanding my objections to HouseOfChange using an unverifiable twitter gossip to discredit a source and he continued to insult me by dismissing my elaborate efforts to explain content as only adding a lot of bytes [22].

As for you: take a look in the mirror. While I was trying to edit the article based on information from reliable sources you were consistently reverting them, accusing me of misleading, dismissing an expert source as "not notable", repeatedly accusing me of POV, suggesting in the edit summary that edits discussed on Talk were "unexplained removals", "BLP violations" that weren't and finally outright edit warring [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28][29] [30] [31] [32]. I went out of my way to discuss content. Even a couple of factual mistakes I corrected, which were very easy to verify, took multiple discussions and unpleasantries to get accepted by you. And then HouseOfChange came along, not contributing but simply deleting my edits without discussing on the Talk page [33] [34] [35] [36], and the story started all over again. He had already flagged my edits as "this page has come under attack" and he responded to my call for a discussion by immediately accusing me of edit warring and biased editing [37]. This attitude never changed. Both now started to attack, accusing me of pushing my opinion, of misquoting the literature, of taking stabs at book reviewers, e.g. [38]; [39]; [40]. In the latter diff they lie that I had changed the text of one of Buidhe's edits to attack a reviewer, but the history makes it clear that I never touched it. It goes on and on. After some of my edits had been reverted thirteen times the page was put under protection, but I haven't seen any positive attitudes from any of you towards resolving the dispute. Saflieni (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been insulted several times, which is not the conduct one expects from an administrator You are expected to provide diffs to back up any accusations you choose to make on this forum. Otherwise they are likely to be treated as groundless. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Supporting Buidhe, Saflieni is wasting the time and patience of other editors who want to improve the article In Praise of Blood.

• He expands criticism of the book, removes positive comments, removes material that supports claims in the book, and reverts multiple edits by others to keep his own POV predominant. Some diffs: (greatly expand criticism from one source) (remove positive quote) (remove material that supports claims made in the book) (revert multiple edits claiming "due to biased uncooperative editor")

• Instead of focusing on improving the article in a collegial way, he attacks those who disagree with him. For example, "More interesting is why Drmies condones every lie you and buidhe have been telling about me and about others. What's your agenda?"[41]

• Even a simple talk page edit request discussion, where both Buidhe and Drmies agreed with my request to remove one phrase from a sentence, and not one person agreed with him that the phrase should remain, he first generates walls of text and then does not recognize the consensus of all other editors.[42]

The book In Praise of Blood is controversial. The article about it "must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." This goal has not been advanced by a WP:POVFIGHTER working to introduce multiple examples of people referring to its author as a genocide denier, a claim the article now parrots four times, with a single pushback by Rever saying she isn't. (Her book, whose subtitle is "The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front," focuses on crimes of the RPF rather than on the 1994 genocide in Rwanda by Hutus killing Tutsis. But the book, in fact, devotes some space to confirming that the 1994 genocide against Tutsis did occur and was a terrible thing.) What the current Wikipedia article doesn't include is the fact that these "specialists" are using the expression "genocide denial" in a way that does not in fact mean denying a genocide-- they intend a specialized meaning that Saflieni describes on the Talk Page: "Rever's book fits Stanley Cohen's definition of implicatory genocide denial." [43] Now to me the meaning of "implicatory genocide denial" should be made clear if the article wants to accuse Rever of it four times. Many people have called Hillary Clinton the "butcher of Benghazi," but if the article Hillary Clinton included four examples of people calling her that, surely WP:BLP would give clarification beyond "Clinton says she is not the butcher of Benghazi because she did not ever own a butcher shop." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of a little wrinkle in my RfA, where I got two opposes because I wouldn't block editor X after some ANI thread or something--one from the editor who wanted editor X blocked, and one from editor X. The current timesink started with an ANEW report (and the attendant retaliatory report), which I closed saying, essentially, that there was an impasse and that there was no good reason to block one and not the other. Saflieni can't let anything go, and continued their protests/comments/insults for days--the same MO they're using on that talk page. I am not quite sure where I went "ballistic"; I did ban them from my talk page because of their incessant whining. I am convinced, by now, that they are a net negative. Nothing good can happen to that article as long as they're around, with their accusations of BLP violations, libel, and what not, with their continued harping and producing walls of texts, with their bad-faith accusations (including that buidhe and House are like tag-teaming and must be in cahoots).

  After I closed that ANEW report, and after I responded to a half dozen more of Saflieni's comments in that thread, I took to the article talk page because I felt that there were mistakes made by both parties, in terms of what reviews could and could not do, etc. In that same comment I mentioned that I was not speaking or acting as an administrator, so that Safliene keeps referring to me in this regard as an administrator is really just gaslighting, an attempt to stack the deck. That's why I specifically asked for EdJohnston to look at an edit request (Saflieni misrepresents a quote from a review, as you can see on the talk page). Again, the only thing I've done as an admin is not block Saflieni or their opponents; in hindsight I regret that since there was copious evidence of edit warring, but I thought that they were able to work things out in a collaborative way. Anyone who looks over my comments at ANEW and at the article talk page will see that I have been plenty critical of buidhe and House--but they, to a much greater extent than Saflieni, acknowledge that this is a collaborative project. Saflieni needs to be blocked from that article and the talk page, at the very least, and they deserve a block for disruption and personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  • The problem which is central to this discussion, and I have tried to point this out from the start, is a knowledge gap. I've been accused of misquoting and POV etc. by two editors and an administrator who have not read most of the relevant documents, such as the book and several other sources. They treat a couple of layman's reviews as authoritive (because those they have read) and are skeptical about the majority view among specialized scholars, researchers and investigative journalists with decades of experience in the field, not to mention independent eye witnesses. Regarding the Epstein dispute, I have twice requested Drmies to read the relevant section of the journal article from which I have selected the quote. It's open access [44] so anyone can check if I misquote or misrepresent the author by simply reading it without bias. There's no excuse to keep accusing me even here of "Saflieni misrepresents a quote from a review, as you can see on the talk page," based on nothing but an uninformed guess and then tell me I'm not cooperative. There still are sixteen references in the article to the reviews by Epstein and Garrett, and their praise is also still there. All I did was remove a few erroneous and contentious remarks and added a nuancing quote from a prominent scholar. I can't believe the fuzz and the hatred that these and similar honest edits have generated. And I find the highlighting of my responses to the endless reverts and obstructions and insults, which I admit should not have reflected my growing irritation the way they did, to be one-sided and unfair. Saflieni (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Despite its length, the section Talk:In_Praise_of_Blood#Edit_request is clear enough: the article contains a highly critical remark about one reviewer--but leaving out the rest of the comment, which indicates that the reviewer does need to be taken seriously. I don't know why Saflieni is claiming that somehow this is difficult: the partial quote is a misrepresentation, and "uninformed guess" is just nonsense. FWIW both Saflieni and House are very, very wordy, but at least House doesn't constantly badger and accuse people. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not highly critical, it simply states a true fact. That whole section in Caplan's article is highly critical of Epstein [45], which is why I chose this neutral quote. Let someone else decide here. For HouseOfChange I have only this to say: I have invited you several times to go over my edits together, here for instance [46], so we could discuss them. But you have refused my offer. Now you bring those issues up again, not understanding that for instance Bisesero isn't mentioned anywhere in the book, so I removed that reference, or that Garrett's bit about witnesses at the ICTR is erroneous because Rever didn't write that and the correct version of the information is outdated, which would require adding extra information. And so on. But you all rather speculate about my ulterior motives. There's nothing I can do about that. Saflieni (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Here's Saflieni's MO again: deflect and sidetrack. Introduce extra extraneous material that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and flood the page. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • My "MO" was to reply to the diffs in HouseOfChange's comment, this one especially: [47]. And I've inserted a diff which explains Caplan's section "Rever has a fan" to make it easy for you. Here it is again: [48]. You've been accusing me of personal attacks and other misconduct but it's the same as with the other two: the pot calling the kettle black over and over. Saflieni (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I added some links to the head of this report. This is a confusing AN3 case. At the start of the case, some admins might have considered User:Buidhe and User:Saflieni to be equally in the wrong , but in my opinion Saflieni has been digging the hole deeper by his ongoing conduct. (The page is now under full protection for a week). Though Buidhe may have some good arguments, this ANI complaint (which he opened) is so murky that I am doubtful ANI will be able to do much with it. If anyone who is concerned with the article would like suggestions of how to resolve the dispute, please post on User talk:EdJohnston since I do have some ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I do hope that whoever decides on this case will check if the diffs presented by the plaintiffs really support their allegations and context, especially the ones in Drmies' comments. EdJohnston: When information is rejected before it's been considered this is not acceptable to anyone. You were there when I presented my argument on the Talk page which was then ignored and not taken into account when the "consensus" was reached. It was ignored again each of the three times I repeated it, such as here: [49]. On this page I'm still falsely accused of misquoting which is a serious accusation so I repeated my argument three times again with links to the source. See what happened. This has been the general attitude on that Talk page. Am I digging holes or are people digging them for me? Saflieni (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Speaking as an uninvolved party: You're digging holes. Replying to every comment here looks more bludgeoning than helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm under attack from different sides but I shouldn't defend myself. Brilliant. Well, if nobody's prepared to look at the content of my arguments and it's all about how things "look" I can see where this is heading. You won't find me here again. Saflieni (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am willingly working to get agreement on a neutral version of the article (and grateful to EdJohnston's help.) But Saflieni does not hear people's objections to his behavior at the article and on the talk page. So I hope we can wait before closing this. I am no longer asking that he be blocked from the talk page, where he does make some good suggestions, but I want to see better behavior in his actual editing of the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

requesting a block I have tried to be collegial, even offering to replace my own draft of "Content" with his (subject to some consensus-based edits) but Saflieni has not moved on from rejecting ideas that change even a phrase of his own preferred content. After days of his uncivil attacks, with edit summaries like "do not pretend to know better than senior scholars please", "Contradicting is not discussing", "Please read the book properly", and most recently "No censoring essential information please," I request that somebody block him for a week. My goal here is to improve articles, not fend off accusations on talk pages. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Need some help here: To overcome the endless quarrels I have drafted a better version of the Wikipedia page that is neutral, captures the book's content, and fairly describes the responses by experts and non-experts, positive and critical, leaving the last word to the author.[50] On request I have inserted references to the bookpages where the author makes claims which are contested by the other two editors. However, HouseOfChange has come out of the closet as a superfan of In Praise of Blood and its author Judi Rever. We're still not getting anywhere because of it. HoC uses polarizing phrases such as "anti-Rever militants" to describe the experts who criticize the book (senior scholars, reputable researchers and renowned investigative journalists).[51] And even though HoC is a layman having trouble understanding academic texts and the contents of this book, he keeps pushing his personal view even though the author herself contradicts it, such as on the double genocide thesis.[52][53][54][55] HoC dismisses the expert's arguments as "RPF talking points"[56] and calls experts who discuss the author's fringe theories "her angriest critics", accuses them of engaging in "groupthink" and "cherry picking", all to suggest they speak on behalf of the Rwandan government rather than analysing the book on the basis of their research and the scholarly literature.[57]. I have tried to explain everything as best I could, latest here [58] and [59]. However, HoC has now appointed himself to be the editor-in-chief of the article and proceeds to edit the article without consensus, circumventing NPOV by moving non-expert opinions to the Reference section,[60] and stealing bits and pieces from my draft that benefit his POV in the process.[61] Because we had agreed to try to make a new, neutral version and not edit without consensus,[62] I have reverted the changes that were made without prior consent, hoping that a neutral administrator will step in and rescue my efforts to create an article that is factually correct, neutral, fair, and gives due weight to the majority view amongst experts. I don't want this to backfire again. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for promoting fringe theories. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni has a content dispute with me and with Buidhe. We have tried to resolve it on the talk page. Saflieni edit-wars to focus the article, including its Contents section, on controversy about the 1994 Rwandan genocide. We say, the book's topic is a decade of (alleged) war crimes starting in 1990. We do not dispute that criticism of Rever's controversial claims belongs in the "Reception" section.

Re the current complaint: as EdJohnston suggested, first I and later Saflieni created drafts for a new "Contents" section. Saflieni has filed this complaint in response to my putting into the article a version of HIS draft (with citations added), calling this "stealing bits and pieces from my draft without permission". So now after four days of work, trying to compromise and build consensus, Saflieni has reverted to the version before any change to the "Contents". This article could use a few more editors, if anyone's willing. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that User:Saflieni is going to win this argument on the basis of his personal charm. His latest remark to HouseOfChange is:

Besides, the point is that you shouldn't be editing this page without explicit consensus. What you did was badly written, biased, and showed no understanding of the subject again. Why don't you find another, less demanding project? [63].

It doesn't seems as though Saflieni's position enjoys support from anyone else. (So much for his demand for 'consensus'). He seems to want the author of the book to be considered a Rwandan genocide denier. The other main participants in this discussion are User:HouseOfChange and User:Buidhe. When HouseOfChange took some excerpts from Salfieni's version and added them to the article, Saflieni objected to this 'stealing bits and pieces from my draft without permission'. Does he know about the copyright release that appears under the edit window whenever you hit 'Save'? Saflieni considers HouseOfChange's work to be 'badly written and biased'. He says that HoC is a 'layman having trouble understanding academic texts and the contents of this book'. If Saflieni isn't able to edit neutrally about Rwanda and to avoid personalizing disputes, I question if he should be participating on this article. Either a ban of Saflieni or another period of full protection seem to be the main options to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Is anybody ever going to look at the content in this dispute? We're discussing a controversial book about genocide, show some respect please. Do you want to get the correct information into Wikipedia or turn it into a fanclub page for fringe theories? I doubt I would get treated like this if I was in a dispute over Andrew Wakefield's book with two anti-vaxxers... Saflieni (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni: looking at Buidhe's userpage I can imagine few editors less likely to dismiss the seriousness of genocide. But thanks for yet another demonstration that you are too emotionally-invested to try to get consensus on content, so instead you attack other editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Really, after all the hours I've put in trying to educate you on this subject, which is a complete mystery to you, you have the audacity to say this. My point is that you would need at least some basic knowledge to be able to recognize the limits of your competence. You lack that basic knowledge. That is not an attack. That's the reality which has been at the heart of this dispute from the beginning.Saflieni (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm getting mixed messages here, not helpful ones. I have again read WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, but don't see which guidelines I violate in [64]. It seems to me that I follow them almost to the letter. On the other hand, I can't say the same of the Buidhe and HoC versions. Could a neutral administrator who is not exclusively focused on my likeability please discuss this discrepancy with me, away from the current 'block and ban'-debates preferably? Thank you. And could Buidhe and HoC for once refrain from commenting, please? Saflieni (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This ANI was filed long before Saflieni wrote those drafts. Nobody files an ANI for a content dispute or "likeability." Look instead at his POV-pushing at one edit request, filed when the article was "fully protected." I asked to remove ONE PHRASE. Buidhe and Drmies agreed with me that the phrase was misleading and POV. Only Saflieni argued to keep the phrase. What happened next (as the meme-pushers say) will shock you... Dec 4Dec 5Dec 10 HouseOfChange (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This is actually a good demonstration of my point. You were violating a Wikipedia guideline, as explained here [65] : "Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value." However, to get your way you managed to convince two administrators of the falsehood that I was using a partial quote to mislead people (see the earlier discussion above). Had they (Drmies and EdJohnston) bothered to verify the allegation as I requested, they and everybody else would've known better. Saflieni (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not "concealing relevant information" to remove inaccurate well-poisoning-- yet you still are demanding that we keep it, verbatim, a phrase that does not fairly represent either Caplan or Epstein. In 2017 alone both The Guardian and The Nation published long articles about Kagame and the RPF written by Helen Epstein. Caplan also expressed respect for Epstein's past work, even if he was apparently ignorant of her Rwanda credentials. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not repeating that whole discussion. Suffice it to say that Epstein is not an expert on the subject but a journalist who is notable for something very different: her work on HIV/AIDS. Credibility depends on whether the expert's disciplinary specialization matches the topic at hand. [66] A couple of newspaper articles don't change that. One isn't even about the subject, the other isn't very accurate. What's troubling is that you try to elevate non-experts to the status of experts because they praise the book while you spend a lot of time on the Talk page trying to discredit specialized scholars who criticize the book, some administrators supporting that. Saflieni (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The topic in dispute was your advocacy for the phrase "noting that Epstein had no great credentials as a Rwanda expert." Nobody asked to describe her as a Rwanda scholar. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References

EdJohnston, I cannot praise you enough for doing what you tried to do here--and yet you seem to have reached the same conclusion I did: the community and the article would benefit from Saflieni's absence. I believe I proposed a topic ban from this article and the talk page before, and I'm wondering how many administrators would have the patience to go through all this wikilawyering, all these misrepresentations, all this chatter before hitting the block button. I get the feeling that you are so invested in this that you are not going to push that button, or impose that topic ban, and as you know I have stated I wouldn't act as an admin here. I think we should post a note on WP:AN asking for a totally uninvolved admin to have a look at this (we'll need to make them a sandwich) and decide on it. Thank you for your effort. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I've been asking for a neutral admin for a month, haven't I? Someone less judgmental and more on topic please. Saflieni (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This ANI thread was opened to address User:Saflieni's personal attacks. I'm planning to warn User:Saflieni that they may be blocked if they use any more ad hominem language in their discussions about In Praise of Blood. That would mean they would be blocked if they re-state any of the criticisms seen above:

• 'My point is that you would need at least some basic knowledge to be able to recognize the limits of your competence.'
• 'The problem which is central to this discussion, and I have tried to point this out from the start, is a knowledge gap'
• 'HouseOfChange has come out of the closet as a superfan of In Praise of Blood'
• 'HoC is a layman having trouble understanding academic texts and the contents of this book'
• 'Why don't you find another, less demanding project?'

I'll also let User:Saflieni know that if he expects admins to have read the book in question before they take any action on this matter, he will be disappointed. We don't need to read the book to determine whether editors are discussing in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Reading your threat, one might believe that I made these comments out of the blue for the sole purpose of hurting someone's feelings, instead of reaching a conclusion after a month of fruitless debate in which I've repeatedly been called a liar with a hidden agenda in different wordings - which is fine by you apparently - and having each of my arguments and explanations contradicted with uninformed assumptions. Not to mention their demeaning language regarding respectable scientists, in attempts to frame them as politically motivated "militants" - also fine apparently. And in between I'm getting more insults from Drmies (look at all the things he wrote on this page) and then you despite my many requests to check the information before judging me. Did you ever check the truth of: "The partial quote is a misrepresentation."? How many times did I ask? And it only takes a few seconds to check that one, quicker than writing this threat. Does anyone care about the actual subject of the dispute? Apparently not. Shame! Saflieni (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Last word on this. One of the mixed messages I'm getting is that the repeated false accusations against me constitute harrassment, according to this: [67] - "It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly." Yet my calls to put a stop to it are not heeded because they make me a nuissance.

Ok, having said that, I'm leaving the following diffs behind for a neutral uninvolved administrator to look at, which will show that from the start I was trying to clear the article of elements that were not conforming with Wikipedia policies, esp. the ones regarding fringe theories, due weight, accuracy, NPOV, and so on, and that I made efforts to replace them with relevant information from RS: [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]

And the discussion about the double genocide theme of the book that led up to the incompetence remarks: [80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87] and: [88] Saflieni (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the need to drag this out any further. Its quite clear Saflieni is WP:NOTHERE, plus the WP:NPA violations. I'm confident everyone here knows what I'm gesturing. Jerm (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Jerm No offense but if I'm WP:NOTHERE how do you explain the fact that I've created a (proposed) better version of the entire article in my sandbox? [89]. One that is neutral, balanced, contains all the different viewpoints according to due weight, takes into account the wishes of the other two contributors, and accurately but modestly cautions Wikipedia readers that the book promotes a fringe theory. Please note that on this page I have already admitted to having inappropriately vented my irritation. I have no problem apologizing for that. I'm only asking to take into account the context: the baiting (not to excuse my response to it), the pattern of reverting my contributions and contradicting my arguments before I eventually began restoring my edits, the POV, BLP and COI accusations I get each time I insert scholarly literature, when I correct errors, and so on. The unsubstantiated accusations of gaslighting, misquoting, wikilawyering, not cooperating, biased editing, etc.[90] by an administrator are not very helping to resolve the dispute, which is between two editors who have read a book they don't fully comprehend (or a few reviews) and have been convinced by its argument, and another editor who tries to give due weight to the majority view among scientists and historians. Saflieni (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni You’re more focused on content rather than your own behavior. ANI is not meant to resolve content disputes. ANI is meant for resolving behavior issues of an editor, and you have plenty of behavior issues. You have been registered for many years, but despite that fact, you are oblivious to the behavior policies of Wikipedia. But then again, you’ve barely made any edits since being registered. The community won’t be taking a loss if you were indefinitely blocked. Jerm (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Jerm I've acknowledged that I've been too direct in my language during the Talk page discussions. I believe I just apologized for that. But I don't agree with the accusations of real misconduct such as false charges of dishonesty and disruption. I am not guilty of those. False accusations are against Wikipedia policy, and I believe that gives me the right to request that someone checks the facts beyond a superficial glance. Anyone can make accusations but that doesn't mean they're true or that the examples aren't taken out of context. Besides, I'm singled out as the bad guy here when the other editors' behaviour (and Drmies') hasn't been any better. I can list dozens of examples of aggressive attitude, personal attacks and false dishonesty claims by HouseOfChange alone, not just against me but also against reputable scientists who have written something HoC doesn't appreciate. ANI shouldn't be a tool for editors to get rid of dissenting voices so they can own an article. I have edited other Wikipedia projects btw (and have a job). Not everything is what it seems from the outside. Saflieni (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aside from Saflieni's contempt for everyone else, there are two problems. One is that he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to do battle against "the campaign by some editors on Wikipedia - some of whom are self-declared anti RPF activists - to introduce unscientific and sometimes demonstrably false content to pages related to the genocide and the wars in Africa's Great Lakes region." (emphasis mine[91] On his userpage also: he is a Rwanda genocide-expert coming here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The other problem is that, despite his best efforts, he can't write impartially. E.g., his draft for the article, which he wants to use verbatim is full of POV. Saflieni is correct that his POV is that of the majority of people who write about the Rwanda genocide. But his emotional investment in that POV causes repeated problems. He should not be writing about the RPF or Rwanda in Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

And the tsunami of false accusations keeps rolling in. Saflieni (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: And the PAs against other editors keep rolling in. 10 edits on December 18--here are 3:

• You're still avoiding a sensible discussion of my draft and are both trying to side-track me again..[92]
• The unsubstantiated accusations ..by an administrator are not very helping to resolve the dispute, which is between [Saflieni and] two editors who have read a book they don't fully comprehend[93] (Drmies is the target of this and a wikilink to Wikipedia:WikiBullying#False_accusations
• I'm talking about your tendentious remarks...This is the kind of personal attacks and allegations that I've been getting from the other two editors .. and is not something I expect from the admin.[94] (EdJohnston is targeted here)

But not one edit today (so far) aimed at improving the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Having fun, HouseOfChange? Why don't you tell these folks how you've been searching on Twitter, looking for dirt on a reseacher in your attempts to discredit a peer reviewed journal article you didn't like. That's how Wikipedia is built nowadays. Mud slinging and framing people to get what you want. Saflieni (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A recap of the case from my perspective and then I'll leave you all to it: I came to the article, which is about a controversial book/fringe theory, five weeks ago to assist the creator because I'm knowledgeable about the subject and had noticed factual errors and misrepresented sources. They rejected my input, reverted my edits time and again, refused to cooperate, and continued to add more erroneous content. When I insisted on cleaning up the article they ran to the Noticeboards to discredit me. And look where we are now. Nothing's changed except now there are two editors unschooled in this subject but with an illusory superiority bias, knowing everything better than even the author of the book herself, not tolerating dissenting voices, pushing their POV because their two to one majority, according to the administrator, means consensus. Meanwhile this mob mentality [95] is developing so I guess there's nothing more I can say or do than to refer to the POV Railroading, False accusations, Misrepresentation, Wikihounding, and other bullying tactics employed here.[96] Saflieni (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

See also: Filing of this ANI and WP:IDHT. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget: WP:CIR e.g. "avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up." And HouseOfChange please read the parts of WP:IDHT which apply to your own behaviour, such as: "repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits," by dismissing my sincere efforts to explain content and start a dialogue about the edits as "walls of text." I will further comment on your Talk page because I really hope we could stop the endless back and forths over here. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni I am not a Judi Rever fan, I do not believe in any "double genocide" theory, (therefore I am not plotting to create a fan page for double genocide theory.) I am a retired academic who has read, written, and refereed many scholarly articles. Repeatedly, Buidhe and I have put your good ideas into the article. When we try to balance your POV, you respond with reverts and with insults. So your flooding this ANI page with attacks on anyone who disagrees with you--it's not offtopic! You're just illustrating why we started this ANI. Please do continue abusing me at ANI. The admins must love hearing all this--since nobody has blocked you. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Where's the reality in all this? You're twisting my words again, giving false accounts of what happened... Don't forget you were already accusing me of bad faith even before you got involved in the editing, which you started by reverting a number of my edits using vague references to BLP and NPOV as weapons. I bent over backwards to get a dialogue going - anyone can check this - but failed and got frustrated. I admit that I shouldn't have but we're all guilty here. Posting tons of accusations out of context and even lies to get me booted is bullying and not helping to improve the article or any other related articles which I can't edit because you're keeping me tied up in the endless discussions and Noticeboard complaints. Look at how this works: You and Buidhe have used BLP accusations against me more than twenty times. I referred to it once (correctly in my opinion) and was immediately accused of Wikilawyering by an administrator. I'm not perfect but can we all get back to reality, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Briefly:

• @Saflieni:
• My first edit to the article (21:21, 2020 November 30) tried to change what I saw as a serious BLP issue: using Wikipedia's voice to accuse a living person of "conspiracy theories and denial." In haste, I changed the phrase to something less pejorative.
• Four more Dec. 1 article edits, all text changes, not one revert, nor did I know if any text was your edit.
• My first edit to the talk page (21:33, 2020 December 1)‎ was criticizing changes I saw in the article.
• You then "bent over backward to get a dialog going" by 1) on the article, reverting all 5 of my edits, with no edit summaries; then 2) on the talk page you personalize the dispute saying "It looks like you try to remove anything critical of the book" and calling me "policeman HouseOfChange."
• In fact, I try to stay civil but it isn't easy. Apparently I attacked Saflieni just yesterday by saying "Let's improve the article!" on the article talk page. To which Saflieni replied: You've repeated this line so often after an uninformed but dismissive discussion of my edits or arguments, suggesting that I don't try to improve the article, that I'm taking it as a personal insult. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, just one correction before I give up: On the Talk page you noted that "the article has come under attack," and "... it has been turned into an attack page against [the book's] author." This was before you started reverting my edits or which you thought were mine (one wasn't but you made another harsh accusation based on that mistake). When I restored the edits and invited you to discuss them with me, offering explanations (diffs on this already posted several times), you instead accused me of all kinds of misdeeds: edit-warring, trying to own the article, demanding compliance, and so on. My fault was that I forgot to fill in the edit summary when I restored, something you keep bringing up until the end of days. This overall negative attitude found immediate support with Buidhe: [97]. I asked then and a couple of times since for a constructve dialogue, here for instance [98]. Your reverts were misguided, btw. What you call Wikipedia voice was actually a (translated) phrase taken from the source. Altering that phrase into something the source did not say wasn't appropriate. We could have solved that by discussing it. Whatever. This is never going to stop, is it? Saflieni (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Saflieni: 1) What you call Wikipedia voice was actually a (translated) phrase taken from the source. I called it "Wikipedia voice" because it wasn't in quotation marks, to mark it as an opinion from that source rather than as a fact about Judi Rever endorsed by Wikipedia.
• 2) "conspiracy theories and denial" is not a (translated) phrase taken from the source. Paragraph 4 (which you need to subscribe to Le Soir in order to see) comes close, quoting the group letter as saying "En promouvant les théories du complot de Judi Rever, vous avez donné lʼimpression de soutenir le négationnisme et le déni." Why make claims about sources without checking first what they say?
• 3) Altering that phrase into something the source did not say wasn't appropriate. I changed 'conspiracy theories and denial' to '"double genocide" theory.' From the very first paragraph of the group letter: "Judi Rever est l'auteure d'un livre, « In Praise of Blood » (Penguin Random House Canada 2018), qui fait la promotion d'une théorie du double génocide." According to me and to Google Translate, the source did say "a theory of double genocide." Why make claims about sources without checking first what they say?
• 4) Yes, you have made many good faith efforts, but they do not make up for the distraction caused by your BATTLEGROUND accusations, or for stalemate at the article when you enforce with reverts your belief that only edits approved by you should go into the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban per buidhe's proposal from two weeks ago, way at the top of this thread. The two weeks of discussion in the interim convinced me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban I took time to read through the discussion here and on the article talk page as an uninvolved editor. I think Saflieni is right now very emotionally invested in the article and it may be better for a temporary time out. Vikram Vincent 05:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this should go to arbitration. I have pointed at the many false accusations that were posted here even by two administrators but nobody seems to be bothered by that. Somebody should check the facts of the allegations. Moreover, a remark by one of the two administrators I refer to suggested elsewhere that regular editors are being treated differently than irregular editors. That's not right. And about emotional involvement: I'm not the one who goes looking for dirt on twitter to discredit scientists, nor do I repeatedly post abusive and tendentious remarks about them, and I don't obsessively try to turn non-RS into RS in order to manipulate the content of the article, nor do I hide questions about these issues posted by other editors on the Talk page, and so forth. Dishonesty stirs up emotions, not the article itself (my draft should tell you that). Saflieni (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: May I suggest publishing your review in full as an article outside Wikipedia? That way it will get the justice it deserves. I personally feel that the accusations you are making in the above paragraph are toxic and hence, with due respect, it might be better to take some time out. It is just a wiki article. Let it be for a while. Peace! Vikram Vincent 06:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing peaceful about WP:POVRAILROAD. I'm not making things up. Taking the easy way out won't solve anything. Saflieni (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: I use the word 'peace' as a greeting like 'thanks'/'best'/'regards'. May I suggest tagging the person you want to respond to rather than making indirect references. Further, your comments throughout the discussion and on the talk page indicate you are very stressed out and definitely need a wiki break. Best! Vikram Vincent 09:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent. You dismiss my information as "toxic" without checking. That's not very polite, smart, or fair, is it? I have said it before: this is mob psychology. Someone starts pointing and then everyone walks in that direction without looking where they're going or who they're following. Saflieni (talk) 09:29, 21 December 20)

Saflieni you may be factually correct in the academic aspect of the article and maybe the other editors are wrong but it seems that you find it difficult to enagage with others without attacking them. A simple example is that you question whether I am smart, fair or polite. You bring in phrases like "mob psychology" which is problematic cause I know I did my independent reading, analysis and conclusion. While your unfair categorisation of me might be perceived as antagonistic, I can empathise with you as being very stressed out, emotionally very close to your work and unable to let go. Maybe you are dealing with something personal which none of us can understand. Unfortunately, this notice board is about behavioural issues and not content and my perception is that you find it difficult to restrain yourself from insulting others while putting across your point and hence my vote to have you temporarily topic banned. Vikram Vincent 09:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent: Your responses reflect a general pattern among Wikipedia users of not responding to what I'm actually saying but to focus on one or a couple of words and then use them to further their own arguments. My point was that you insult me by qualifying my information as toxic without having checked my information first. I wasn't talking about the academic aspect of the article but about the false allegations posted here and elsewhere and the bullying to WP:POVRAILROAD me. It's tiresome that several people like yourself try to attribute (or project their own) emotions and motivations to my edits but never to those of other editors, even when they're glaringly obvious. That's one aspect of the mob psychology. Because someone put me in the spotlight everything else is obscured from view. Your comments are not very different from what HoC wrote: "... his draft for the article, which he wants to use verbatim is full of POV. Saflieni is correct that his POV is that of the majority of people who write about the Rwanda genocide. But his emotional investment in that POV causes repeated problems." But did I ever say that I want my draft to be used verbatim? No, I suggested to use it as the basis for the new article (EdJohnston's idea was to write a new article), and to refine and expand it together. The draft is not my POV and I'm not emotionally attached to it. Most of the accusations here are out of context, twisted or invented, which is why I'm suggesting to take it to Arbitration. Saflieni (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni If you scroll to the top of the page you will see the following sentence as the first issue: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." So yes, we are focused on the way you are behaving rather than the content of your article. Content is discussed on the respective talk page. I spent reasonable time reading the entire discussion including your points. If you feel that we are all a mob then you are free to move away peacefully. I already suggested you publishing your full review outside Wikipedia. Who knows, maybe some editor may quote you here. Vikram Vincent 12:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent: Misconstruing my arguments is a popular pastime over here. What I ask you and everyone else is to check the content (facts) of the accusations and their context. Some of the accusations against me include references to the article, which is why it is mentioned but that's different from what you're suggesting. This is like EdJohnston writing on this page that I expect administrators to read the book, something I never said nor suggested. People make up a story and then they stick to it no matter what. False accusations are personal attacks too, you know: "... unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly."[[99]] Btw I didn't call you a mob, just called attention to normal group dynamics. There's a whole scholarship on the subject [100]. But go on, get rid of the critic. As if that improves Wikipedia. Saflieni (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: How can it be that Buidhe and I, DrMies and EdJohnston, TheHandThatFeedsYou and Jerm (followed by admins Levivich and Vincentvikram) all tell you that your behavior is wrong -- but instead we're all wrong? WP:CONSENSUS is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies" (including AGF and NPA.) Saflieni, can you give a few examples where you thought even one of concerns Buidhe or I expressed about your draft was legitimate? Here's the article talk page history to make it easy. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Levivich and Vincenvikram aren't sysops. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 01:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Dohhhh! I guess that was just wishful thinking on my part. thanks, Tenryuu! HouseOfChange (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: Before writing this note I went back to the article talk page to see if my observations could be wrong. Even your latest edits on the article talk page are shifting between bully and victim mode. They are very aggressive and antagonistic. Looking at all the discussions you have engaged in, this appears to be the main pattern. Despite all our intervention if you are unable to change your attitude then we may have to let you go for the interest of the community. Changing vote to indef topic ban Vikram Vincent 10:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Let us examine the latest question posted by HouseOfChange:

1. Behaviour: I have already acknowledged on this page (five times I believe) that I've used language which is too strong and I'm making efforts to adjust that. But I'm asking others not to provoke because that's a constant reality I'm facing with them running to the Noticeboards the moment they succeed. Even if they don't they just post partial quotes. Being rude themselves while using acceptable wording isn't helping either.
2. False allegations: I have referred to the tsunami of false allegations against me which are in fact personal attacks and examples of disruptive behaviour too, and part of a WP:POVRAILROAD campaign.
3. Others joining the party: Making false allegations is apparently contagious. Why do Drmies and EdJohnston post false accounts of what happened? They are the only ones who can answer that question. I can only refer to facts, which I have done with several examples already. I'm asking third parties to consider the facts without prejudice. I could add several more examples, like: Drmies accusing me of gaslighting for calling him an administrator when, according to him, he wasn't. But the moment I said something he didn't like he immediately put on his administrator cap and and ran to my Talk page to issue a warning. Or EdJohnston who mocks me on this page about my "demand" for 'consensus', when I was in fact abiding by his own proposition to stop editing the article unless several people had given their explicit approval.[101] We all agreed to that but as soon as the ban on the article was lifted they were editing the article again according to their own POV.
4. Context matters: Many of the so-called ad hominems I'm accused of were not ad hominems but responses to personal attacks. For example: HoC accused me in a provocative tone of biased editing, COI, doing Wikipedia a disservice, etc. because I wanted to expand a little the information from a peer reviewed source. I responded to their suggestions by pointing at their own campaign to give a non-expert source a prominent place in the article, and asked them: 'what's your agenda'?[102] Isolating my remarks makes them look like random attacks when they are on topic and part of a defence against an attack, even though I could have phrased things differently.
5. Current behaviour: I decided not to respond to new allegations posted by HoC to manipulate the general opinion, but to instead address one at the Talk page of the article by suggesting a compromise. Although my compromise was accepted, it immediately led to new allegatios of wrongdoing - I was now falsely accusing others - which needed a reply which will no doubt set off new discussions.
6. Consensus: WP:CON says consensus is not a vote, but that's the approach taken by the other two contributors to push their POV. Consensus building states: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." This is where the competence issue, which I've mentioned several times, comes in WP:CIR.
7. Commenters on the Noticeboard: See the relevant discussions. Saflieni (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saflieni: My latest question was can you give a few examples where you thought even one of concerns Buidhe or I expressed about your draft was legitimate? Again, here is the article talk page history. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to admire HouseOfChange's skills in framing people and throwing discussions off track. Their last question is not genuine because we are still in the middle of the discussion at the article's Talk page. And look at posts like this one: [103]. Not a single one of those allegations is true but they're suggestive enough for visitors of this page to buy into the fiction. Saflieni (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni you have more than earned a site ban. Your behavior is getting worse, not better, when (even at ANI and under scrutiny) gentle criticism from previously-uninvolved Vincentvikram provokes That's not very polite, smart, or fair. Wikipedia's other articles will not benefit from having your attitude descend on them. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Saflieni one week for personal attacks, based on the accusation of lying: " And please stop posting lies on my Talk page and on Noticeboards. Saflieni (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC). It may be that Saflieni cannot edit neutrally on In Praise of Blood. I am not attempting to decide that second question now. But the attacks on other editors are obvious. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violated?

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

As far as I know, User:Tillman is topic-banned for the topic of climate change. Is he allowed to do this?

Not the first time this year either: [104]. And User:JzG warned him about it: User_talk:Tillman#Warning --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2015 User:Tillman was banned indefinitely from the climate change topic per this entry in DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

But the WP:BANEX exception applies when there was an "obvious violation of the policy about biographies of living persons". The phrase "not a climate scientist" (with earlier additional words like "by training" removed) was inserted in the lead in late 2019, later removed and re-inserted at least three times, most recently re-inserted by Hob Gadling. Since lacking formal training specifically in climate science is not the same as not being a climate scientist, this was at most a good-faith miscalculation of what would be obvious to others. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant Wikilawyering. Happer "has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy." He is not only "not a climate scientist by training", he has never done any climate science. The exception does not apply, since pointing out obvious truths is not a "violation of the policy about biographies of living persons", let alone an obvious one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Obvious truths? Oh here we go... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this means that I can start putting "He's obviously not a rocket scientist" into BLPs without getting into trouble. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Only those BLPs which are about people who are employed as rocket scientists in spite of lacking the qualification. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Prof Happer is a distinguished, prize-winning physicist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Honors. Your comparison is out of line. Arguably, borderline slander for your preferred lede. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

.But the WP:BANEX exception applies when there was an "obvious violation of the policy about biographies of living persons".

That exception is for things like "Joe Smith is a pedophile." without citation. It is not a "get out of topic ban" for any contested statement regarding a person. Tillman should not have touched this article for anything short of clear vandalism or damaging BLP violations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the idea that BANEX applies here is ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems this is not an isolated incident: back in April there was [105] and the associated discussion here. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this one: [106] --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

More of the same, but a bit older: [107]. It seems that this will continue happening if nobody does anything about it. This is the right place for such problems, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of why I never tried to get this ancient topic-ban lifted, despite my having relevant technical qualifications in the field. The Wiki Climate Wars live on! And happy holidays, too. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, if you go around trying to present people's WP:FRINGE views as mainstream, you will discover that gets up the hackles of other editors, particularly when you have been banned from doing so. Who knew?! --JBL (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at this I see a consistent pattern of topic-ban violations, especially the talk page posts, but overall there's a clear contempt for the topic-ban, and attempting to weasel out of it "because BLP" is not a convincing argument. Accordingly Tillman has been blocked for one month for violations of their topic ban in the area of climate change. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • And I probably shouldn't be surprised that part of their response to the block is blatantly violating WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Probably you wanted the previous talk-page diff. --JBL (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
      • That one too, but I was specifically referring to his referring to "Hob fake name". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:CIVIL says "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, he or she very probably doesn't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping." Perhaps you didn't notice that JBL called my idea "ridiculous" and replied sarcastically to Tillman. That's okay. But I hope that in future you will look for incivility with both eyes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions by Bgkc4444

• Bgkc4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Bgkc4444 was warned in a previous report by Ivanvector to assume good faith in dealing with editors, such as myself, to which they responded, "I do apologise for assuming bad faith, and I will try keep a check on that." ([108]) Having been pinged to a discussion at Talk:Surprise album#Removal of sourced material, given my contributions several months ago, I noticed they are still making bad-faith accusations and suggestions toward other editors, Fezmar9 specifically, and I see these are similarly bad-faith and suggestive comments that tested my own patience before.

• [109] "no matter if you personally dislike those facts", is how they opened the discussion after their only series of changes to the article in recent memory was reverted yesterday
• [110] "And you do not own this page so how dare you tell me to 'leave well enough alone' because you personally don't want to accept or display these basic facts." ("own" was pipe-linked to WP:OWN)
• [111] "we shouldn't not be making articles encyclopedic because we personally don't want readers to know the full story."
• [112] "It's funny looking at what you're trying to force into the article."
• [113] "Watch your tone, and it would be great if you stopped with the whataboutism and actually responded to my points. And well, no. As much as you'd love it to be the truth, Swift's albums aren't the main events in surprise album history like Radiohead and Beyonce's albums."
• [114] "Again with the ignoring of my points? ... I hope you're not refusing to engage in discussion, because this isn't your article, and you should want to reach consensus to ensure it is encyclopedic." ("this isn't your article" was pipe-linked, again, to WP:OWN)
• [115] "I'm not the one reverting to force my contradictory opinions onto the page."
• [116] "Consensus is not three editors agreeing with each others and explicitly agreeing to ignore opposing views."
• [117] "The way editors on this page are trying to bury that fact by misrepresenting sources and hiding the significance of her album in a "shared" paragraph really isn't helpful."

I gave own input on the content dispute, with comments focusing strictly on the editor's changes and the content, rather than the editor's conduct or intentions, and even restored a piece of information that had been undone from Bgkc4444's original edit, but with a more appropriate source. Bgkc4444 replied by quoting a remark I made several months ago about what I felt was toxic and condescending behavior by them, while accusing the editors in disagreement with them of "trying to bury" information and "hiding the significance" of a particular subject. In my own opinion, I did not see anything suggesting Fezmar9 or BawinV have behaved or intended to behave in the way Bgkc4444 has said or suggested.

Content disputes can get heated and emotional. But, considering Ivanvector's advice in the aforementioned report, for more diligence in reporting incidents, I feel obligated to report this activity. Perhaps it will deter this kind of behavior so the rest of us can feel comfortable and encouraged, rather than compelled, to comply with more civil and patient standards of discussion about content. And so potentially toxic or unfair comments do not become normalized or countered by similar accusations and suggestions in discussions that should not lose focus of the content. Thank you. isento (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, you say "similarly bad-faith and suggestive comments that tested my own patience before", but I believe you're referring to your continuous personal attacks despite final warnings from administrators, which caused you to be blocked just ten days ago. I also believe you admitted your personal intolerance of me ("Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it."), said you want no further interaction with me multiple times, and called this administrators' noticeboard a kangaroo court of hypocrites, so I genuinely cannot think of a good reason why you'd join a discussion that you know I started and then complain about my actions to the same noticeboard.

Secondly, I do not see how these are "continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions". I certainly stick by my contributions to the discussion that I had made, unless I violated Wikipedia guidelines that I am not aware of. It is certainly true that both in the previous discussion and in the current one, editors explicitly agreed to ignore my points (especially you, when you said: "Don't waste your energy on this person, BawinV. Their repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article.") and then consequently claimed that consensus was reached. I am happy to go through each of the out-of-context quotes you brought here one-by-one, but I don't want to waste time and would appreciate an administrator's POV. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

My conduct has already been addressed in the previous report. I have learned from and am over it. Nor will I be baited into further behavior of that kind -- as I clearly said above, I was pinged to that discussion and had contributed significantly to the article. WP:HOTHEAD makes it clear that project[ing] negative mental assumptions about someone you're in a disagreement with is wrong, and saying things like "no matter if you personally dislike those facts" or making repeated accusations of page ownership seemed to fit the bill to me. So I reported it. I think a more formal warning rather than a block is appropriate, especially since Bgkc444 responded so defensively and was quick to highlight my past transgressions rather than reflect on their own behavior. They have demonstrated a pattern of making inflammatory or unactionable accusations ([118], as warned by Escape Orbit, and elsewhere: [119], [120], as warned by the since-retired admin Ad Orientem). And believe they should be held accountable for it like anyone else. isento (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

How is this WP:BAIT? I believe bait would be something like - after being blocked for continuous attacks on an editor, pledging a personal intolerance of them and pleading to not have interactions with them again - joining a discussion that that editor started, "remaining superficially civil" (e.g. as you said, you "even" restored a small piece of the material that I added) and "then complain to an administrator". I gave you the benefit of the doubt, hoped you had changed and wouldn't try and ruin my editing experience for me as you have continuously done for months, but unfortunately I took the bait and here we are. Fezmar9 and I were in a NPOV dispute and we both accused each other of bias. If you brought this to ANI for the sake of educating editors about how to keep cool during a discussion, why not write a message on both mine and Fezmar9's talk pages? WP:CIVIL provides many methods and tips for how to deal with incivility. It also says that "In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard", which is certainly not the case here. The fact that you didn't try any other method to deal with the claimed incivility (which goes against Wikipedia's policy), are specifically targeting me (the editor who you said you are intolerant of) and not both editors involved, and are bringing this straight to the board that blocked you due to my report last week, could suggest that you are trying to get "payback" on me, which would be highly inappropriate. Bgkc4444 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday at the aforementioned discussion, while pointing out the source-integrity flaws in Bgkc4444's original edits to the article, I encouraged them to make new edits with better sources they had themselves pointed out in the discussion to me but that they had not actually used themselves. Instead, the editor poured their energy into responding to this supposedly merit-less incident post, while I went ahead and used one of their proposed sources and added further detail to the subject -- Beyonce -- they had taken issue with for not having more detail.

This editor appears to routinely attack the intentions and credibility of other editors who do not agree with their Beyonce-focused content changes, such as at Alecsdaniel's talk page here a month ago: All of this does not indicate you are acting to improve this article, and instead shows that you're trying to make the film seem "worse" ... As someone who edits on Beyoncé-related articles often, I find it really strange that fans of (typically white) artists frequently try to add negative content or minimise positive content in her articles ... repeatedly trying to force your edits onto the article that you know violate Wikipedia policies related to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. This is another example where the editor was disagreed with and overwhelmed the other editor with WP:HOTHEAD-like accusations and suggestions, and when the other editor gave a valid response addressing the issue and then bowed out, Bgkc4444 still continued with the same line of argument, accusing the other editor of "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and "pretending to not realise why your material was removed and repeatedly blame it on my intelligence or personal agenda (it's because it violates Wikipedia's policies, by the way)" while suggesting that they have not been "engaging in constructive discussion". isento (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I can honestly say my experience with Bgkc4444 was the worst on the English Wikipedia. "Black is King", a film by Beyonce, had the 'Reception' section filled only with overly-long praises from various sources and failed to address any criticism. In order to give the article a level of objectivity, I've added reviews or points made that weren't praising Beyonce, which the user removed. Despite having a conversation and a vote on the talk page of Black is King, in which other users agreed the points I raised were valid, he continued to remove anything he didn't see as good reviews. I've tried to talk to them, but, as seen from the answers given to Isento even here, they fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar. I truly believe this kind of attitude is toxic for people to interact with, which is why I left them to their device, and there is still only praise on the "Black is King" page. Furthermore, since they lack objectivity, it is really hard to say how much their contributions value on Wikipedia, as this is not a fan page. But not everybody gets that. Alecsdaniel (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Seriously, are you not tired of this? And are you refusing to address my points even here?

"I encouraged them to make new edits with better sources they had themselves pointed out in the discussion to me but that they had not actually used themselves. Instead, the editor poured their energy into responding to this supposedly merit-less incident post, while I went ahead and used one of their proposed sources and added further detail to the subject -- Beyonce -- they had taken issue with for not having more detail." - Very benevolent of you, but because Fezmar9 and I are currently in a discussion regarding this content, I did not want to add material without ensuring there was consensus on it. And I'm not having a discussion with you while you're trying your hardest to get me blocked on here. I learned my lesson from the first bait-taking.

And seriously, why are you bringing up months-old content disputes? It's actually sad that you'd try pick out random out-of-context quotes from a content dispute I had with someone months ago while ignoring their same messages to me as well as their personal attacks on my intelligence, something you have also done for months. I'll bring it here again. Fezmar9 and I, and Alecsdaniel and I, were in NPOV disputes and we all accused each other of bias. If you brought this to ANI for the sake of educating editors about how to keep cool during a discussion, why not write a message on mine, Fezmar9 and Alecdaniel's talk pages? WP:CIVIL provides many methods and tips for how to deal with incivility. It also says that "In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard", which is certainly not the case here (and, to add, a months-old discussion isn't an emergency either). The fact that you didn't try any other method to deal with the claimed incivility (which goes against Wikipedia's policy), are specifically targeting me (the editor who you said you are intolerant of) and not all editors involved, and are bringing this straight to the board that blocked you due to my report last week, could suggest that you are trying to get "payback" on me, which would be highly inappropriate.

This is hilarious. Isento says I should be blocked because I said another user is "trying to avoid the issue at hand" and not "engaging in constructive discussion", and Alecsdaniel follows saying that I "fail to ever answer to any question you raise, but instead bring up other issues - it feels like you are bargaining with someone at a bazaar". Alecsdaniel you can say that all you want! Accusing me of avoiding the issue is a wrong characterization, but that is certainly not something that goes against Wikipedia's policy or warrants administrators' attention. If it does, Isento, again, why not address both of us? To that end, @Alecsdaniel: please bring one question that I did not answer, because I can bring up many that you did not answer. No, as I said months ago, polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that your material violated WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT (you admitted that you looked for sentences in reviews that matched your personal opinions of the film), yet those issues are still something that you haven't addressed months later. I've stated many times that I welcome additions of "negative" content to the article, added such material myself to the article, cut the rest of the material considerably down, and have tried to have constructive discussion on the article talk page and your talk page. I don't see the point of continuing our discussion here when no-one replied to me when I tried making discussions on the talk pages. This is a noticeboard to get administrators' assistance, not discuss content disputes. I feel bad, Isento, that you're trying to drag this on. Bgkc4444 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your answer just backed my claims. Thanks! Alecsdaniel (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bgkc4444:, I'm sorry for being hard on you in the past and saying things out of frustration that I did not mean. I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in. I also know how it feels to become defensive and distressed when we feel our space violated or threatened. As I stated above, I do not want you blocked. But for us to coexist, we all must change. When there is a pattern of conflict, we must see that there is fault in some behavior or aspect of our behavior that we keep repeating. And as harsh as it may appear to read, our comments have truth to them. isento (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? Your condescending comments and faux psychoanalysis are extremely inappropriate. Please see your talk page. To stay focused on the actual discussion. What conflict do we currently have? The only thing I said to you was a comment last week saying that something "isn't helpful", and with another user I've had an NPOV dispute. These are not urgent or emergency matters that require administrators' discipline. The discussion here isn't going to go anywhere if you continue to ignore the points I raise. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You have admitted to having mental health issues here and here, and my point was to try relating my own experience with mental health issues to you so you would stop compulsively attaching negative mental assumptions to editors who appear at odds with you (WP:HOTHEAD), and instead appreciate the good faith that is there. But this response tells me I failed to do that -- instead of seeing the effort through good faith, you completely misread it through a bad-faith lens, which betrays a problem. And this noticeboard is not only for "urgent or emergency matters". It is also for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." isento (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Where do I admit that I have "mental health issues"?? I said that your continuous incivility took a toll on my mental health. I never said I have "mental health issues", nor that I've lived in an "abusive household", nor that I "feel handicapped by it", nor that I "use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in". It is highly inappropriate and actually quite disgusting that you'd make those assertions about me. If you'd want to appear as acting in good faith, it would probably be best to avoid telling other editors that they are handicapped idolaters with mental health issues. And I don't believe you're stupid so I know that you know what the right thing to do is.

Unsurprisingly, it's hard to see good faith in someone who has abused me for the better part of a year with horrible personal attacks and insults, which evidently hasn't stopped. It's hard to see good faith in someone who was blocked for this abuse against me just last week, who admitted their personal intolerance of me ("Know what, BD2412? When you're right, you're right, and I can't deny it: I can't stand that person anymore. This ridiculous post has is the final nail in the coffin for my patience with them. Ban us from interacting with each other. It's not worth it."), and has said that they want no further interaction with me multiple times, but then reply to a discussion that I started and then when I reply, immediately report me to ANI. That doesn't indicate good faith. I assume you know that you yourself have problems with "compulsively attaching negative mental assumptions to editors who appear at odds with you (WP:HOTHEAD)" and making personal attacks, because every time I have to discuss this issue with you, either I write a note on your talk page under another note on your talk page about incivility directed against another editor, or other random editors join in my section highlighting how you act the same way to them. If you know you have a problem with other editors so much, and especially me, and if you truly want other editors to view your actions as being in good faith, there are many options you can choose to do that. Interacting with editors when you know you shouldn't, reporting them to ANI and continuing with baseless personal claims about them are not some of those options. To that note, how would you know if those issues are "tractable" if instead of writing a polite message on my talk page, you either write uncivil or condescending comments or go immediately to ANI? Again, this makes it harder for me to see your actions as being in good faith, if that is truly what you want to gain from this discussion. Bgkc4444 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make those assertions. I said that those were my experiences. Bgkc4444 is the one who had brought up mental health as an issue originally. As for writing a polite message to their talk page, I recall doing so in the beginning and getting accused of mocking them ([121]), merely because I said please don't restore the content again. These responses are consistently combative and distracting the focus from their behavior to mine when mine has already been addressed in the previous report. That is by definition intractable. That they respond defensively to my apology for my past behavior is also indicative of this long-term issue. isento (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bgkc4444:, I'm sorry for all the mean, intolerant things I've said to you in the past 😢 I'm sorry if they hurt you so much. I believe my concerns here are valid and of good-faith, but I am still sorry. isento (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"I didn't make those assertions. I said that those were my experiences." - No, you said: "I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in." Saying "know how it feels" means that you're making those assertions about me. That's obvious, Isento, and if you want to appear as acting in good faith then pretending you never said that doesn't help. "Bgkc4444 is the one who had brought up mental health as an issue originally." - Again, I said that your continuous incivility took a toll on my mental health, not that I am a handicapped idolater with mental health issues.

"As for writing a polite message to their talk page, I recall doing so in the beginning" - No you didn't. You just repeatedly placed warning templates on my talk page, including two within 24 hours, and replied sarcastically when I asked you to clarify. This clearly shows that you were not writing polite messages on my talk page, despite the fact that WP:UW clearly states that "issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with", not writing personal messages, and not clarifying yourself can all indicate that the editor is acting uncivilly. And even if you did write a constructive message on my talk page (which you didn't), we're talking about a discussion from this week, not 6 months ago.

"respond defensively to my apology for my past behavior is also indicative of this long-term issue" - Telling me that you relate to me because I am a handicapped idolater with mental health issues and you get where I'm coming from is not in any way an apology, and having an issue with such accusations is not being defensive nor "indicative of this long-term issue".

Isento, it is not "past behavior" or "things I've said to you in the past" because this is very clearly an ongoing problem. Yes, your comment to me is highly inappropriate and I tried discussing it with you on your talk page, but you deleted it (as you always have done when I write personal messages on your talk page regarding your behavior) and replaced it with a link to "Love's In Need Of Love Today". And you're clearly not sorry or bothered about ruining others' experiences on Wikipedia if, when I tell you the distress that you've caused me, you say that I am "hyperbolizing whatever offense I allegedly cause them. I can't imagine how I'd be judged if I engaged in these histrionics. I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it." Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Alecsdaniel was right. You're proving my point. And as for the song, not everything is about you - we all have our own lives and crises of conscience to which you have no relevance. I was rude and sarcastic in the past because I felt you were obnoxiously self-serving and unrelentingly biased, and you are still taking everything said way too seriously and unforgivingly, if only for the sake of your own ego, since this noticeboard post isn't even a content dispute and since you have verbosely attacked the merits of this post, God knows why if you don't think it has any merit to begin with. I apologized and took responsibility for the past, but your continued aggression makes me feel regretful and foolish for doing so, since you seem incapable of considering or taking any blame on your part when multiple editors have pointed out to you that you've got a problem. I will now leave this in the more capable hands of administrators. Bowing out 🙏 isento (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see here, I wish users Isento and Bgkc4444 would WP:DISENGAGE. Both of you keep going back and forth, often more heated than the last. In my opinion, as an uninvolved third-party, both of your behavior toward each other is inappropriate and unacceptable. Regarding specific issues: Bgkc4444 has what appears to be some serious tendentious and POV pushing issues, going so far as to ignore local consensus on pages (as Isento) pointed out. However, Isento is a very experienced editor with over 120,000 edits and has been here since 2008. Given that breadth of experience, I feel that they should be more than capable of handling this type of issue without being so easily brought down to a level of interaction which is lesser than should be expected of them. (Personally, to witness this happening to such an experienced editor is disheartening.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Gwennie-nyan, I am sorry for disappointing you. It was a very rough year, and I let it seep into my activity here sometimes. But I am healing. Hence the inspiration for posting the song. I'm not a machine. I've had issues too. And I really got to sympathize with what I sensed the editor was going thru because I've been there too. I hope my shortcomings have at least served to help another editor see theirs. Because they have positive potential that can help the project. isento (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for your comment. Could I possibly ask you to clarify when I "ignore[d] local consensus on pages"? Is that regarding my quote that Isento brought saying: "Consensus is not three editors agreeing with each others and explicitly agreeing to ignore opposing views."? Because that sentence is certainly true. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, mostly, as you admitted to it, consensus is a complicated thing. If you're on a page and there's a total of four editors (yourself included) discussing things on a talk page, and three of them are in agreement and you disagree, you're facing growing local consensus. Now, if you don't think you and your arguments are being given a fair shake, that's why we have the RFC system and dispute resolution system, where third parties can be brought in from a wider scope to the page and help weigh-in on disputed matters. If you find yourself facing down three editors (concurring with the position you oppose) by yourself, without any other support, and you keep trying to force your arguments or way by yourself without using some of those systems I just mentioned, that is definitely a fertile ground for problematic behavior, if not somewhat problematic in itself. I heavily disagree with you saying it is certainly true, as it is more likely to be untrue than true (in this context). ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for your response. That isn't exactly what happened. Editor A started a discussion about various edits done by Editor B, and I tried to bridge the two and voiced my agreements and disagreements of points within both arguments, however this was met with intolerance (e.g. "Don't waste your energy on this person, BawinV. Their repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article.". WP:CON states that "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised" and "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.", so the conclusion of that discussion cannot be considered a consensus just because it's "3 vs 1" and especially if the "3 side" explicitly said to ignore the "1 side"'s concerns. I also believe that I do not "keep trying to force your arguments or way by yourself". WP:CON further states that soliciting outside opinions should be done when there is a deadlock, but the discussion lasted for only ~12 hours before my opinions were told to be ignored and that request was heeded, so I didn't solicit outside opinions because we hadn't even had a proper discussion, let alone form any consensus. Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, thank you, but I've already gone through plenty of pages related to the contributions of both you and Isento so I can make informed comments.

Regarding the incident you linked, I would also like to point out your comment. Both of you have been editing music-related pages (most notably Beyonce-related), so it makes sense for you to end up in the talk pages thereof. Things really didn't become personal until that comment, which targeted Isento with an implication of WP:HOUNDING. (Such that BawinV discouraged you from that behavior.) If you feel that they are, then you need to report that, you don't escalate the confrontation. Reading through the talk pages, it seems that after Isento appeared you become much more disagreeable and your statements became pointed.

Both here and in examples that have been pointed out, you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering which isn't very constructive for the purposes of the project in my opinion. The number of other editors who have expressed their dissension with your interactions is concerning. While trying to assume good faith, I am also inclined to point out that someone more cynical might think you're gaming the system, as Isento likely does, as they have accused you of making bad-faith accusations.

I would also like to point out that when Isento has posted a good list of diffs regarding your content, you have been misdirecting the conversation. While I appreciate the link to Isento's statement, they have already been disciplined for it. This AN/I is not about them, it's about you. To ignore the accusations of misconduct by you by pointing out the misbehavior of others is whataboutism and not a very good-faith tactic to engage in.

These are the reasons Isento and Alecsdaniel have said that your statements prove their points and I have to agree with them to a certain degree, which I don't necessarily want to. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that consensus was reached on that page even though WP:CON states that consensus is not when editors ignore others' concerns nor when there's 3 vs 1? And apologies that I made a suggestion of possible hounding on that talk page three months ago, but Isento's personal attack to me is not justified because of that, in the same way that my suggestion wasn't justified by his preceding personal attacks to me. And I don't understand why you're pinging other editors....

Please explain in what way I "engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering" (and gaming the system)? That's a pretty serious claim to make and one that is considered an insult if it doesn't address a specific argument.

Which brings me on to this. I still don't understand exactly what my supposed violation of Wikipedia guidelines that warranted this ANI report was, any more than I was in an NPOV dispute which I don't understand why it would warrant such an approach. In my first response to this discussion, I said so, and have said so repeatedly throughout this discussion, but I am none the wiser. Also, there's nothing wrong with giving the full story to any administrator reading this because there is no "immunity" for reporters (WP:SHOT). Bgkc4444 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The far more serious claim that I took serious offense to and ended up losing faith and seriousness for you was being accused of racism and misogyny: To quote Ivanvector in the previous report: "I read isento's comment from August (this one) criticizing a source as "just some neurotic vapid lecture about Swift "oversharing"", which in the next edit you described as "[isento] dismissing this article by saying "it just isn't a serious piece of commentary" because the work of a black female writer "is just some neurotic vapid lecture" and said it "sounds extremely misogynistic and racist"." When I warned you about it in August as a personal attack, you doubled-down on the claim: "Calling out your racism and misogyny is not considered a personal attack, because there is evidence of this behaviour" Now, I was going thru a lot at the time in my life, so I was bone-headed enough to talk down to you in response, and from there, I ended up stooping to your level further, as Gwennie-nyan suggested. There was no legitimate reason for accusing me of that. And you never owned up to it. I don't want to be a hypocrite and assume bad-faith as to why you'd accuse me of that, or why you'd continue denying that you have demonstrated a problem. So I am left with no other conclusion than it has been a mental health issue. To avoid the complication of improving an article we both have an interest in, for instance, I really hope we don't need an interaction ban, but it seems from your responses that you still don't get the problem, which resigns me to leaning toward Gwennie's proposal, sad to say. isento (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, for your understanding, consensus is a variable thing. If you're facing superior numerical resistance, the strength of the argument you need is much stronger than if otherwise. However the spirit of consensus is plurality is probably the best, not always, but probably. One of the biggest factors in gaming and wikilawyering is trying to cite policy to go against the spirit of policy, cherry-picking arguments, or such that make you look better without actually improving your case.

Regardless, you just did it again, we're not talking about Isento's conduct, we're talking about yours. They already received their 3-day block for it. In fact, this AN/I report is directly a result of their admonition by the admins, recommending they file more reports instead of fighting you on talk pages if they have a concern. (Additionally, I ping other editors when I reference them in case they want to comment on or correct my portrayal of their comments.)

Full stories are fine, but it's quite clear you cherry-pick Isento's comments out more than you defend your own. There's not immunity for reporters, no, but unless it's extremely evident that a report is made in bad faith, part of assuming good faith is to assume the reporters have the best of intentions. Equally another part is to discuss and try to have the accused explain their actions. Isento has owned up to their bad conduct, admitted it, accepted their punishment, and is trying to follow admin recommendations for the future. No one expects an editor to be perfect, heck I'm not, but we do expect some modicum of self-awareness and self-critique. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: I do not understand how I can explain my actions if no-one explains their problems with them to me. Am I right in saying that you're claiming that I "engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering" solely because I said that reaching consensus involves incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns, and that you believe the spirit of consensus is not based on incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns? If so, I'd have to strongly disagree. Further, I'd appreciate more examples that warranted the unsubstantiated claim of a "significant amount of wikilawyering" and gaming the system, and tenditious editing. And that's not what the administrator said; they said that they should report "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if an editor is having an NPOV dispute with someone. And Isento has not "owned up" to it because they continue to tell me that I have mental health issues. I don't see why you expect me to be okay with these insults. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Having had some interactions with Isento, it is my fair opinion that he is the problematic one, not Bgkc4444. In regards to Beyoncé's 346 ASCAP-registered songwriting credits, Isento typed : "If I were to compile 346 parking tickets, that would not make me a professional criminal.", "It is up to editors to make judgement calls." All editors were calm, but he increasingly got emotional and argumentative. In my observation, he's the one that showed tendentious and POV pushing issues, even editing my own post and repeatedly using the history page to antagonize other editors. Yes, Isento was disciplined for his actions, but he did not show much remorse, calling ANI a "kangaroo court" [122]. Also, on one occasion, Bgkc4444 questioned consensus in regards to the lead of Beyoncé's article but did not edit the lead to reflect her position. There was then another RfC in regards to the infobox, and consensus was reached. Israell (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that when having a disagreement with Bgkc4444 over the "Black is King" article, as seen here [123], a strange thing happened, which I am not sure if it's notable or not. I've added a review in that article in which I mentioned that some African people didn't like their portrayal in the film, to which Bgkc4444 replied that "Also you previously said that it was "Africans" who said your criticism, and yet you're Romanian" - my nationality, ethnicity or any other part of my identity, I think, shouldn't matter, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Futhermure, he continued by mentioning that "As someone who edits on Beyoncé-related articles often, I find it really strange that fans of (typically white) artists frequently try to add negative content or minimise positive content in her articles.", which, frankly, seems to accuse ME of racism, as I was a fan of a white artist (as he clearly pointed out several times during our conversations) who added negative content in that article - even if properly sourced. I believe that is very serious suggestion which shouldn't be treated lightly, Gwennie-nyan. I've let it slide, but after reading what Isento had to say, it seems that this is not the only time he has done so. It further affected my personal time on Wikipedia, as I was now debating if adding a negative review meant I was contributing in some way to the micro or macro aggressions that Black people have to face every day. Please take notice of this comment as well. Thank you! Alecsdaniel (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe Alecsdaniel knows that's not what happened and that they shouldn't misrepresent what I said or the case. They added three positive reviews, two from Black Americans and one from Africans, but picked out-of-context negative-sounding sentences from the reviews and put it in the article, despite all three reviews refuting those negative points. They said it was because they wanted to represent the views of "actual Africans", but the one sentence that they did bring from a review written by Africans wasn't written by the reviewers, but was by a Twitter user that the reviewers quoted and said they disagreed with. I tried to clearly explain how this violated the policies related to issues such as WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but was told by Alecsdaniel right from the beginning: "you are showing a clear bias" and that "often fans of singers like Beyonce and Lady Gaga take control of an article". These are claims they stuck by, even though I have said many times both before Alecsdaniel said that and after that I welcome negative points in this article and this is not what the content dispute is about and have added a policy-compliant summary of negative points to the article as well. They then told me "it is not a personal attack, my comment about those fandoms come from my direct interaction with those fandoms", which is not a justification for their actions. Isento then joined in against me and started an RfC. Alecdaniel's one of only two contributions to this was, after Isento told me "Five paragraphs of regurtitated praise and you're quibbling over a few measly sentences suggesting less-than-flattering yet valid thoughts? Forget personal attacks. We're dealing with a Beyhive attack.", they replied "So it would seem ...". The unassociated editor in the discussion agreed that Alecdaniel's additions violated the policies about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and that editor, Isento and I were having a lengthy and (mostly) constructive discussion about the material.

Months later, Alecsdaniel then readded the exact same material that they knew violates Wikipedia guidelines without further discussion, and acting against what was spoken about in the discussion, saying "There was a vote, the paragraph stays" despite the fact that polling is not a substitute for discussion, and the main conclusion from the discussion was that the material violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, something which they haven't recognised (eg. they then told Timeheist: "I can't even imagine what you consider "material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia" if reviews from trust-worthy sources fall into that category for you".) Then I started a section on their talk page so that we could discuss this. Alecsdaniel unfortunately met me with claims of "You simply want it buried", "If you cared about being objective", and "I am afraid you don't understand what an encyclopedia is", as well as "some fandoms are notoriously ... difficult, even here, and you only seem only too willing to push that narrative". I raised the issue of their personal attacks, but I was told "I feel like you are reading too much into what I say or do - and not even paying attention to everything". Alecsdaniel then also said that they added those negative points because these were things that they personally believed when watching the film. That is when I highlighted the fact that they're not African, not to say that their concerns should be ignored (and I obviously think the opposite because I was the one taking part in a lengthy constructive discussion on their suggestions, not them, added material to the article to match what they wanted, and started a discussion on their talk page), but to highlight that their argument changed from that the material that violates Wikipedia guidelines should be added because it was written by "actual Africans" to because those were their personal beliefs. And no, I never called them a racist or said they were engaging in micro or macro aggressions, but I apologise if my comment suggested that or if they felt that I was making personal attacks. Again, if I believed Alecsdaniel was only making these edits because of some malicious agenda, I would not have constructively engaged in the RfC discussion, tried to reach consensus, edited the article to accommodate their views, or written a message on their talk page. In fact, the opposite of these 4 points applies to Alecsdaniel's actions. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Israell, I agree some of their behavior has not been acceptable. They have been (to some extent) and will be held to account if it becomes problematic. I have heard similar opinions from other editors regarding Bgkc4444 as you have regarding Isento, I think a general two-way interaction ban is the most fair to two editors. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: To reply to your point in the other thread, I've repeatedly asked you and Isento to explain your assertions about my behavior, but still I receive no reply - I feel that point 22 of Wikipedia:ANI advice applies here, which says: "Don't just wiki-link a bunch of policies... Quote what you mean." and also "The "spirit" of policy argument only goes so far as that the policy actually alludes to it in writing and not in title alone. Just because you think a policy should say something doesn't mean it does 'in spirit'." Further, "bringing up that again isn't always the best thing to do" and "if it becomes problematic" aren't the best comment to make on a case where an editor who had just been blocked for personal attacks against an editor repeatedly tells that editor that they have mental health issues. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, understanding is important and since you and I are having trouble seeing eye-to-eye, let's try changing the format to be more clear. Please respond to this message with specific assertions you need explained (preferably one per line) and I will do my best to reply to them in an itemized fashion (as I've done elsewhere).

(Also, side note which is optional but helpful, consider putting quotes in {{Talk quote inline}} or {{!xt}} templates depending on venue. This can make it much easier to read by separating quotes from message text.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 08:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Gwennie-nyan Thanks. Just starting on two points, you said:

• "you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering"
• "Bgkc4444 has what appears to be some serious tendentious and POV pushing issues, going so far as to ignore local consensus on pages (as Isento) pointed out"

I do not believe either assertion is correct. I went to the help desk to ask about wikilawyering because the way you were describing it didn't make much sense and seemed to go against Wikipedia's guidelines itself. I was told "Wikilawyering tends to give me a certain vibe that a person thinks they are clever, and above the rules due to their cleverness. You did none of that." You repeatedly claimed that the spirit of consensus isn't about reaching some conclusion together (which is what the "con" part of consensus refers to) but instead about whether it's 3 vs 1; however, this is not based on the policy itself (and again, I feel that point 22 of Wikipedia:ANI advice applies here, which says: "The "spirit" of policy argument only goes so far as that the policy actually alludes to it in writing and not in title alone. Just because you think a policy should say something doesn't mean it does 'in spirit'.") and this actually goes against what the policy specifically says. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, thank you for listing this plainly (apologies for the delay, life has been very busy for me)

• regarding wikilawyering: In some of your general talk posts, you seem to constantly try to cite policy or guidelines in a very copy-paste-link manner and try to argue them like this is a court of law or tribunal, it's not. While policies are more rigid and there's WP:IAR waiting in the wings too, ultimately rules on the Wiki are mostly fluid (except for certain legally-required rules WMF enforces). Additionally you seem to apply them mostly to excuse yourself but not others. Unequal application is not a practice that is typically found among those arguing in good faith.
• regarding tendentious-ness and POV-pushing: you tend to edit in a way that (assuming good faith) is poorly-worded from a social point-of-view. It seems to imply that your edits and perspective are best in certain situations, and the core focus on tendentious-ness is repeated WP:NPOV issues.

I would like to point out that the ANI Advice you linked isn't a policy or guideline, but an essay. It's not considered authoritative. It is a single user's perspective. Additionally, that quote about WikiLawyering is, again another editors perspective on the issue. These perspectives above, however, are mine. The aggregation of perspective is the basic element of consensus. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

As someone shared their experience with this user, I also want to. Particularly gatekeeping "Savage (song)", in which I removed content from bad sources months ago, citing the reasons, several times. I've checked the article again after all this time, and he put it back again. There's a considerable level of wp:fancruft with his edits, saturing articles... Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing well-sourced material (Billboard isn't a "bad source") and making trivial edits (random spaces, removal of full quotes) is not constructive editing, and I've tried starting a discussion with you four times here, here, here, and here, but for some reason you don't engage. It'd be preferable for everyone if you pick one of those to continue the content dispute instead of ANI where your actions will be scrutinized also. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged so I thought I'd chime in. It looks like my interaction with Bgkc4444 at Surprise album has already been brought up. I felt their edits of up-playing Beyonce and downplaying all other artists on that page demonstrated a clear bias. There's a lot to read here, so I admit I didn't read all of it, but I hope it has not gone unnoticed that this discussion is about Bgkc4444's bad-faith assumptions and the majority of their responses here seem to assume bad faith and take a defensive tone. My interactions with Bgkc4444 have been meandering and loaded with aimless whataboutism tangents that don't actually go anywhere, so I do not wish to comment here further. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Resolution Proposal

(Non-administrator comment) As a non-admin who has dug into this issue, I would like to propose the admins implement the following proposal:

• Talk/Interaction Ban of Isento and Bgkc4444 interacting with the other, anywhere, unless required by policy, enforced by blocks. (This would hopefully resolve the ongoing issue between the two editors.)
• Topic Ban of Isento and Bgkc4444 from Beyonce-related pages, broadly-construed. (Recommended by Levivich)
• Formal Admonishment
  • of Bgkc4444 for tendentious editing, wikilawyering, and periodical whataboutism.
  • of Isento for tendentious editing, hounding Bgkc4444, and casting aspersions.
• Mentorship for both Isento and Bgkc4444 to help them learn from this incident and to move forward in more productive fashion for the project.

Respectfully, ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC) (Updated: 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC))

After reading this thread and some of the talk page discussions linked therein, I think this proposal is too weak. Warnings have already been issued; this isn't the first ANI thread. As far as I can tell, both editors are creating disruption in the topic area that is wasting other editors' time. A 2-way interaction ban will stop them from disrupting each other, but not from disrupting everyone else (plus, ibans are a pain to enforce for editors who edit in the same topic area). I think tban them both from Beyonce, broadly construed. Maybe also an iban, but an iban alone won't help. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, added your suggestion above. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

So how long is this block gonna be this time? isento (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, it hopefully won't be necessary, provided you both abide by the iban, provided it's implemented. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I'm down for an iban. I'm also down for simply disengaging from "poorly worded" remarks by editors. I am down for healthier activity and conduct. isento (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, I'm glad you're beginning to take this route. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

[124] isento (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Responses

I haven't been involved in any Beyonce-related articles since my block four weeks ago and I hadn't planned to. I was pinged to the talk page of Surprise album a few weeks ago by a different editor because I had contributed there in the past, and Bgkc444 was there, on a Beyonce-related matter. I responded appropriately and strictly to the content, and they responded back tendentiously, as much on editors as on the content. And I felt obligated to report it as an instance in a long-term pattern, regardless of whether I had been involved in that pattern, because that's what had been advised by the admin in the previous report. I would really rather they see the light too, so to speak, and tbh, a topic ban feels embarrassing, almost as embarrassing as my past interactions with them. As Gwennie suggested before, I brought this on myself by stooping to their level and I should've known better. But I really don't have a deep interest in editing Beyonce articles. Tackling the content disputes, I will admit, was more inspired by offense to observing biased and tendentious editing. I did not intend to cause them distress or to offend them, but I did end up doing so out of my own distress and offense with them. And whether I should've tackled those disputes or not, doing so the way I did was never constructive in the big picture - it was always going to depend on the cooperation of more editors than just me or them, and the infighting simply alienated that process. I do believe I had a problem with civility even before this at times, and I am grateful this process has helped me evolve and become more patient and self-aware, and less ego-driven. I hope you can trust I won't pursue or indulge in an interaction with them, by the off-chance an opportunity presents itself, and settle on an iban. Unfortunately, Bgkc4444 and one of their cohorts appears to be in complete denial still about the former's problematic behavior and in denial of the fact that I have taken responsibility for my behavior, judging by this recent remark. So it's hard to blame whatever choice you make. But these are my thoughts, for whatever it's worth. isento (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thank you for your comment. I tried reading up on WP:DE and I don't see why my actions warrant a topic ban. For point 1 ("continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors"), as soon as I made an edit that was reverted quoting my "fetishism", I started a discussion on the talk page. And that is what I now do for any content disagreement, and I always reply to Isento's and other's points in discussions, but Isento typically ignores mine, sometimes explicitly. For point 2 ("fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research"), I am also not doing that, as everything I included was cited and not misrepresenting the source, and in fact I tried to make two different sentences fit this requirement because they were heavily misrepresenting the sources, but those too were reverted. Point 3 ("Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging") haven't done either. For point 4 ("Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.) again I have not done so, and in fact Isento explicitly said to ignore my opinion in a discussion and then falsely claimed that a consensus was achieved. And finally point 5 ("Rejects or ignores community input") I have said many times that it would have been much more preferable to go through the correct routes of dispute resolution instead of reporting me straight to ANI.

Further, I do not see how my actions can be seen as disrupting "progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia" in general. I have always edited to improve the encyclopedia and have always engaged in discussion when Isento and others disagree with something in content I've added and, again, start those discussions myself because I truly want these articles to be encyclopedic. Yes, this is a topic I edit a lot in, and believe I've always been making constructive edits to articles in this topic, such as writing over 90% of Black Is King, 70% of Black Parade (song), and so on. A topic ban seems to me to be a severe sanction for this.

And just quickly on Isento's points (because his behavior is being discussed in a later thread) "that's what had been advised by the admin in the previous report" is an incorrect statement because what the admin advised was "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if you see someone in a content dispute. I am happy to see Isento admit that he was editing Beyonce-related articles because of me personally (to note it wasn't just questioning my edits because Isento added a whole new "controversy" section to the main Beyonce article), so thank you, and if Isento did not do so to intentionally cause distress then I apologise for previously saying that. (Later edit:) On second thought, I don't believe I can fully say that. Isento says that he only edits on Beyonce topics because of me, but not all of those cases were "content disputes". For example, a week after Isento received a formal warning for his attacks on me regarding a Beyonce-related content dispute, Isento wrote a section dedicated to a "controversy" on the main Beyoncé article. This was not a topic nor an article that I had a content dispute on, and by Isento's own admission he edits on Beyonce-related articles specifically because of me, so this suggests to me that that edit was some form of 'payback' for the content disputes not going in the way he wanted and him being sanctioned. Again, I cannot be in denial if I repeatedly ask to be explained my wrongdoings and receive no reply (however Gwennie-nyan has now agreed to offer her opinion, so thank you) and it cannot be said that you have taken responsibility for your behavior when you still repeatedly tell me I have mental health issues and continue to stand by that assertion. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It was not incorrect. Bgkc4444's response at the talk page, cherry-picking negative comments I'd made months ago and accusation of editors of "bury[ing] that fact by misrepresenting sources and hiding the significance of her album", was an inappropriate post, which is what Ivanvector had advised to report.

I did not specify Bgkc4444 as the exclusive cause of my presence in those articles. I specified "biased and tendentious editing" as what had "more inspired" me to tackle the articles. It would be unfair to say Bgkc4444 was the cause of inaccuracies and misuse of sources crediting the subject with more than was true, such as this and this, that I rectified.

Bkc4444, contrary to their claim above, did have a dispute about the section I revised, disputing the source-integrity of the section in this edit and suggesting in another comment that I was "so hell-bent on trying to paint Beyonce as a thief then of course the editor would insert an indiscriminate collection of opinions that support their belief from every random musician or journalist they can find."

I would have kindly responded to content-specific points had they not been overwhelmed with cherry-picked negative quotes from my past used against me or bad-faith accusations such as those I've highlighted. isento (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeating in full one of the two comments Isento made in the original discussion that was directly stated about the issue in the later discussion is not "cherry-picking negative comments I'd made months ago" and the discussion wasn't "overwhelmed with cherry-picked negative quotes from my past used against me" either as the large majority of what I wrote wasn't anything to do with what Isento said in the previous discussion. And, yes, I was in an NPOV dispute where Fezmar9 and I said that each other were respectively trying to exaggerate or downplay issues in the article (e.g. comments made against me include "fetishism" [125], "One look at your edit history suggests your motivations in beefing up Beyonce content here are extremely biased based on your personal perception of the facts. The page already mentions Beyonce plenty as is, leave well enough alone." [126], "you're extremely biased" [127], and so on) - I have said that throughout this discussion.

Again, what Ivanvector advised was "if you think you are being unfairly called out for inappropriate posts", not if you see someone in a content dispute, and not if someone makes inappropriate posts. This shows how quoting things out-of-context can completely change the meaning of the material. Apologies for misunderstanding that comment about Isento's editing habits on Beyonce-related articles. "Bkc4444, contrary to their claim above, did have a dispute about the section I revised" is an incorrect assertion, because I didn't claim that I never disputed Isento's edit, I said "This was not a topic nor an article that I had a content dispute on", meaning at the time Isento wrote the controversy section. And I didn't assert that that quote was what Isento was doing, in fact I said "I hope that's not what you're doing here and, again, hope that you do the right thing for this topic." Finally, no excuse should be made for telling another editor they have mental health issues, especially not after being blocked for making personal attacks on that same editor the same month. Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That they responded in kind to Fezmar9's suggestions indicates a problem on their part too, a problem they still deny, which is likely why an admin will just lean toward a topic ban instead of showing faith with an iban. That they continue to misconstrue my revelation of mental health issues in connection to their admission in the oast of an issue is further indication that such bad-faith attitudes won't cease. My mental health suffered too in part from these attitudes. isento (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What I said in my response to Fezmar9 was inappropriate and unnecessary and responses to incivility should always be non-retaliatory. I don't have a problem saying that. I am not misconstruing anything and I am tired, to be honest, of repeating this. Isento condescendingly told me: "I should be more sympathetic to mental health issues -- I've lived in a verbally abusive household and know how it feels to feel handicapped by it, as well as to use hobbies and idolatry as a space to escape in." I wrote a message on his talk page regarding this, but he "replaced" it with a link to "Love's In Need Of Love Today" without responding. He then replied on ANI, claiming "You have admitted to having mental health issues" and then bringing links to when I said that his incivility and personal has affected my mental health and explained how that made me feel, which is not admitting I have mental health issues (and also doesn't mention growing up in an abusive household, being handicapped by it or engaging in idolatory), and is also a topic on which he previously said I am "hyperbolizing whatever offense I allegedly cause them. I can't imagine how I'd be judged if I engaged in these histrionics. I made one nasty remark out of frustration with them, months ago, and they still havent' been able to get over it." Isento then says that me trying to discuss his incivility with him on his talk page evidences "a problem", despite the fact that WP:CIVIL lists talk page discussions as the first port of call to address an incidence of incivility, not ANI. I explain all of this to him, but he then denies he ever said it and again makes incorrect claims about me. I again respond explaining how his claims about not making personal attacks are incorrect. He then replied saying: "I felt you were obnoxiously self-serving and unrelentingly biased, and you are still taking everything said way too seriously and unforgivingly, if only for the sake of your own ego". He also doubled down on the assertion that I have mental health issues. I have now just seen that Isento replied to Timeheist in the thread below, after Timeheist mentioned Isento's claims of me having mental health issues, saying that Timeheist only called him out on his personal attacks because Timeheist is prejudiced, writing: "If you had read my original comments and set aside your prejudices, you might have seen that." Isento says "I've apologized either way", but unfortunately this is evidently untrue from this conversation. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, I went back through the posts you linked and the links in those posts as well. You, for good or ill, their post. They were saying your actions affected their mental health in context, not that they have mental health issues in general.

Bgkc4444, I'll take it from here as a third party. If you make something known and Isento needs to be confronted or rebutted, I'll take care of it. It doesn't serve purpose for you to rebut further because it continues/escalates the back and forth between you and Isento. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What exactly did I do to their mental health? Because their editing has been consistently tendentious before and since then. isento (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Phrasing like "your constant need to make my editing experience less enjoyable" makes it seem like it's a mental health problem, particularly when they use such phrasing in reference to their mental health ([128]). They are combative and tendentious, yet playing the victim; hypersensitive to themselves but insensitive under the guise of politisse (a loud "Thank you!" following a false accusation of racism and misogyny?) to others in the way of their content changes, suggesting I am personally out to get them for the sake of ruining their enjoyment, when it's clearly been the biased nature of their content changes that has been the real issue in those content disputes. Just recently they referenced other random editors join in my section highlighting how you act the same way to them, when in fact those other editors is one collaborator in favor of their Beyonce-article changes, for which I'm seeing now they've been reported about back in April (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1034#Bgkc4444) by JzG, to which Bgkc4444 showed early signs of accusing others of mischaracterising them. I honestly cannot keep up with responding to all of their points, and often I feel demoralized by the bad-faith nature of said points. It is daunting communicating with them. At some point, if I have a deeply vested interest in a content change that conflicts with what they want, I am not sure if I will not likely lose my nerve or simply bow out. Which is why I am in favor of an interaction ban. If a topic ban for us both it must be, so be it. At this point I have nothing here to fight for or defend myself against. I think their behavior speaks for itself, and other editors have confirmed that. isento (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Isento, both of you are clearly off-base when it comes to this specific interaction. Bgkc4444 feels and has repeatedly expressed a feeling that you are dogging them across the wiki. They're trying to contribute, albeit in a possibly misguided or inexperienced way at times. You are both accusing the other of things which aren't true via mischaracterization. I attribute this to the total breakdown between you two. Good faith doesn't exist between you two anymore. As a result, every interact is met by increasing hostility and emotion-laded responses. Like I told Bgkc4444, if you need to respond to anyone, respond to me, and I will mediate this, lest the responses get more uncivil. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: Thank you for offering to help. It's important to note that I actually haven't "repeatedly expressed" that Isento is hounding me in this discussion and I apologised for previously saying that he did, so I feel that this claim is false. (Side note: I wrote a message here so that you could explain your other claims against me that I feel are false such as "you engage in a significant amount of wikilawyering". I hope that you can respond to it if possible because it might help move the discussion forward, thank you.) I'm not sure how bringing that old report here is constructive or meant to prove something when evidently it was a misunderstanding that could've easily been resolved with a polite talk page discussion (as with this case), with Mazca immediately dismissing the report. Unfortunately, Isento's comments even here and now indicate that the personal attacks will not stop. It is also not just a problem that Isento has with me, because I am reminded of one of the times I wrote a polite message on his talk page about his incivility, where my message was under a message from Tony1 from the day before about Isento not following Wikipedia's rules, to which Isento replied asking Tony1 if they had mental health issues (specifically Asperger's), as Isento repeatedly told me I have. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That was a joke, from The League, season 2, episode 10. It's on Hulu. Check it out. isento (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I am on the spectrum too tbh. Perhaps that has been a source of misreading certain remarks of mine as negative. isento (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the wherewithal to care about this anymore. I want to put the past behind me, let bygones be bygones, and continue focusing on content rather than editors at articles. You guys can too if you really want... isento (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor calling Omarosa Manigault Newman and Kimberly Klacik "tokens" and discussing their "look"

Editors User talk:Praxidicae and User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x have been making editing the Kimberly Klacik article, but they have expressed a hatred and animus against her and Omarosa Manigault Newman, based upon their "look" and have called both of them "tokens". This discussion can be reviewed here: Space4Time3Continuum2x's token comment and comments on their "looks". This discussion between Praxidicae and S4T3C2x is derogatory, disrespectful language that borders on worse. The exact wording is as follows: Seems fairly obvious that she’s not seriously running for office. She’s applying for Omarosa’s job as Token Black Woman at the WH or a paying job on Fox. Either way, she’s got the mandatory look down. Praxidicae did not tell S4T3C2x that the comments were disrespectful and inappropriate. Praxidicae did not tell S4T3C2x to take down the comments, have them removed. S4T3C2x should remove the comment immediately. Neither of these editors should be working on Klacik's article. This discussion shows an antipathy toward the subject of the article, an animus that is ugly and unacceptable. I asked Praxidicae a series of questions and I will ask these questions again. Why do we have discretionary sanctions on politics articles if nothing is not done some like these becomes clear to other editors? Why didn't Praxidicae tell the fellow editor, S4T3C2x not to engage in such horrible talk? User talk:Praxidicae and Space4Time3Continuum2x probably shouldn't be editing the Klacik article whatsoever since both of them seem to have a hatred and antipathy toward the subject. Why are they discussing Klacik's looks or Omarosa's looks? And why are they assuming that Klacik and Omarosa are just "tokens"? Why are they using Wikipedia to comment on Klacik's and Omarosa's looks? These editors should disengage from the Klacik article and stop using the article to attack the subject. Please work to have these horrible, disrespectful comments about Omarosa and Klacik about their looks and race removed from Space4Time3Continuum2x talk page. Those comments go against everything Wikipedia is supposed to be for. Both of these editors should stop editing the Klacik article since there is a real animus issue toward Klacik's and Omarosa's "looks" and status. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It's this same kind of combative, unproductive behavior that got them (CharlesShirley) banned from Elizabeth Warren (referesher, since they've forgotten [129] [130])

Now they've taken to whitewashing Kim Klacik and then attacking editors who question their edits, when they remove sourced information, then obfuscate their answer and accuse others of racism among other things.

Praxidicae No, I don't take advice from editors that engage in discussions where you and Space4Time3Continuum2x call Klacik and Omarosa Manigault Newman "tokens", which is derogatory, disrespectful language that borders on worse. The exact wording is as follows: Seems fairly obvious that she’s not seriously running for office. She’s applying for Omarosa’s job as Token Black Woman at the WH or a paying job on Fox. Either way, she’s got the mandatory look down. Sorry that I repeated such horrible, nasty talk, but how else can I call you and Space4Time3Continuum2x's behavior and attitudes to the carpet? This wording needs to be removed after we come to a way to fix this BS talk and POV editing. Afterward there is some kind of resolution of this horrible, disrespectful BS then we can just point to this edit: Space4Time3Continuum2x's token comment and comments on their "looks". Why didn't you tell your fellow critic of Klacik not to engage in such horrible talk? I guess since you didn't tell Space4Time3Continuum2x to cutout the disrespectful talk then you clearly agree with it. You and Space4Time3Continuum2x probably shouldn't be editing this article whatsoever since both of you have a hatred and antipathy toward the subject. Why are either of you discussing Klacik's looks or Omarosa's looks? And why are assuming that they are just "tokens"? Why are using Wikipedia to comment on their looks? You should disengage and stop using the article to attack the subject. Your intentions from your comments are clear. Who put you two in charge of who and who isn't a token? Who put you in charge to discuss Klacik and Omarosa looks? Why are either one of you judging the subjects on their race? And why are working so hard to put false and defamatory information in the article? Whatever you answer is it doesn't look good. Please work to have these horrible, disrespectful comments about Omarosa and Klacik about their looks and race removed from Space4Time3Continuum2x talk page. Those comments go against everything Wikipedia is supposed to be for. And both of you should stop editing the article since there is a real animus issue toward Klacik's and Omarosa's "looks" and status. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 9:13 pm, Today (UTC−5)

And now, the pièce de résistance, accusing me of saying something I never said, supporting something I never said I agreed with and demanding I become the keeper of another editor? I think this warrants a boomerang in the form of an AP2 ban. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: For clarity, since you've now dragged your baseless personal attacks against me to ANI, please provide diffs where I have said anything about either of the two individuals "status" or "looks". Thanks. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 03:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, you've made very serious and unsupported accusations that Praxidicae has taken part in these comments about "token" and "look", but I see zero evidence that she has done so. I strongly suggest that you either provide evidence now or immediately retract your statements both here and on the article's talk page. I also see that your attitude on the talk page appears...less than constructive and collaborative. You need to work towards solutions, not create drama and make unfounded accusations. I'm not impressed by Space4Time3Continuum2x's comments on their talk page either, but it still does not warrant you being so combative and it does not warrant accusations towards Praxidicae. Waggie (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• It is apparent that CharlesShirley has no interest in collaboration in the area of AP2 topics, they are still editing and attacking other editors with baseless accusations and WP:ASPERSIONS and they've failed to substantiate anything even here. I would propose an AP2 topic ban, it's evident that they cannot conduct themselves in a civil and collaborative manner. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• The bolded quote is me voicing an opinion on my talk page where CharlesShirley didn't leave a message. There was no discussion of anyone’s looks, race, or status, and I did not make any "horrible, disrespectful comments" there or anywhere else. If I showed "hatred and antipathy" or "attacked" Klacik or inserted "false and defamatory information" in her article, CharlesShirley should point out those incidences. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's still not cool. Your opinion on your talk page is sill publically visible to anyone that happens across it. Saying "Token Black Woman" is all kinds of problematic. I thought you might be quoting the snopes article but it is not mentioned there. BLP applies to talk pages too (see WP:BLPTALK). Be more careful. Praxidicae has done nothing wrong that I can see. You are not obliged to point out bad behaviour on others talk pages. AIRcorn (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources for my three sentences: [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Either way, CharlesShirley has not responded to what I feel is a perfectly reasonable request for them to support or retract their accusations towards Praxidicae. Even though they are clearly active on Wikipedia. As they do not seem interested in participating in an ANI thread they started, and also seem to feel it is appropriate to continue on with similar behavior elsewhere, I think that a WP:NPA block is appropriate, or at the very least, an indefinite AP2 TBAN as suggested above. WP:BOOMERANG applies, IMHO. Waggie (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Either way? So Praxidicae is not guilty of aiding and abetting, but it’s OK for the editor to misquote what I wrote about a dozen times ("looks" ain’t the same as "the look", and "a job as Token" ain’t the same as being one), make assumptions about me and my alleged attitudes, call me racist, and accuse me of having put false and defamatory information in the article? Maybe I should I take this to teacher ANI. Oh wait - I’m already there, and it seems I’m the bad guy. Gee, thanks. A lengthy argument between CharlesShirley and Praxidicae took place from 20:24 UTC to 23.38 (UTC) which seems to have gotten more and more heated. Then at 02:24 UTC this, at 02:59 this, and at 02:41 UTC the notification on my Talk page. I wasn’t aware of CharlesShirley’s accusations until 10 hours later, and—what with the numerous pings CharlesShirley had sent from the Klacik talk page—I didn’t notice the admin board complaint and the notification on my talk page until an hour after that. If the editor had asked me to delete the remark on my talk page I would have done so without arguing about it because what would have been the point. They didn’t, the sh*t hit the fan (sure brought a lot of traffic to my talk page), and now I am arguing. What I wrote is neither racist nor sexist/lookist (whatever), not even borderline, and I haven’t added any false or defamatory information to the Klacik page. Either way? You don’t know anything about me, so please don’t make any assumptions about me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think the issue is that if you were quoting someone, the use of quotation marks or a similar identifier on your talk page would have cleared up any misunderstandings. As it is, it looks as if those are your own ideas. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, why are you angry with me? I am expressing concerns about CharlesShirley's attitude, and you seem to attack me because my concerns aren't the exact same as yours? I've made no assumptions about you, perhaps you've made some of your own? Waggie (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on my comments. Touché about the assumptions. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• This turned out to be a classic case of WP:GRENADE, it would seem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block or TBAN for CharlesShirley

• proposal it has been 4 days since @CharlesShirley: opened this thread and 4 days (plus some) since they made egregious claims, cast aspersions and created personal attacks and have still failed to substantiate a single one of them, as they continue to edit and ignore the mess they've made here. I am proposing this thread be closed with a block or a topic ban given this users past conduct and inability to collaborate in areas where AP2 is involved. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I've created a sub-section for this following Prax's proposal. CharlesShirley has been both pinged in this discussion and active on Wikipedia, but has not responded to requests for evidence regarding their accusations against Praxidicae. CharlesShirley stated: "...[Praxidicae and Space4Time3Continuum2x] have expressed a hatred and animus against her and Omarosa Manigault Newman, based upon their "look" and have called both of them "tokens"." CharlesShirley also stated: "[The discussion on Space4Time3Continuum2x's talk page] shows an antipathy toward the subject of the article, an animus that is ugly and unacceptable." and "...since both of them seem to have a hatred and antipathy toward the subject." While stating that Prax's complicity is because she "...did not tell S4T3C2x to take down the comments, have them removed." Praxidicae is under no obligation to call out other editors on their behavior (correct or not), and should not be attacked based on the behavior of other editors. Additionally, per WP:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia editors are expected to remain civil and professional even when they find another editor's behavior to be objectionable. I personally think a TBAN from AP2 would be most appropriate here, since they do seem to have the most difficulty in maintaining a constructive attitude in this particular topic area. Waggie (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TBAN per Waggie. starship.paint (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. If anything, we should restrict or sanction editors who refer to women of color as “token black” women. Please close and let’s move on. Saying “she’s got the mandatory look down” could be grossly offensive to those who “look” like that. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Not necessarily opposed to this, but I don't like that we are overlooking the other bad behaviour. Sure bringing Praxidicae into this was wrong, but the original complaint against Space4Time was fair enough. And Spaces responses here suggest they don't understand what is wrong with their comments and if anything is doubling down. Ban both or ban neither. AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Reoccurring Vandalism and edit wars of a previously banned User.

Hello, A few weeks ago User:Callanecc was the admin who partially banned User:Kami2018 for his disruptive and extreme edit warring on the article of the Khalji dynasty[137]. He was having an extreme edit war against several users because he did not want to have the term "Afghan" in the article. Since the ban his behavior did not improve, he does the exact same edits on the Khalji Dynasty[138] and does not engage in any talk for his edits either. This vandalizing behavior of him wanting to remove the term "Afghan" from historical articles is what his Wikipedia account is all about, he vandalizes articles related to the Pashtun people with the sole purpose of removing the term "Afghan" from the article[139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151]. This is very disruptive, the list goes on and on but I thought this was enough, you can further look into his edits, since his account was created the vast majority of his edits are simply removing the term "Afghan" from articles. The term "Afghan" is the historic term for the Pashtun people and used as a synonym, this should be the most basic knowledge for someone who thinks he has the right to edit war his non-historical POV on articles by vandalizing them. I would really appreciate an intervention regarding this issue, its simply going way too far,a behavior like this should not be tolerated on Wikipedia . --Xerxes931 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Per the definition of Afghan, Kami2018's edits does not look disruptive or POV-pushing unless Kami2018 removes sourced terms and replaces them with unsourced ones. Afghan has both pre-modern and modern usages/definitions. So does Kami2018 remove and change sourced content? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Afghan has both modern and pre-modern meanings, maybe I didn’t really word my comment well, but in a historic context Afghan refers to Pashtuns. He’s also removing sourced information which can be seen in his edits but also blindly just removing Afghan from every Pashtun-related empire. Just an example, Pashtun empires like the Lodhis or Suris, even the Durranis, are usually never referred to as “Pashtuns” in historic sources(mostly not even in modern sources) but rather as “Afghan”. Pashtun/Paxtun is rather the endonym which Pashtuns themselves use but is usually never used in a historic context, thus removing the term “Afghan” from those articles is clearly historical revisionism and going against the sources. I can add authentic sources for every single article of an empire or noble where he removed the term “Afghan” for them being Afghan if you want me to do that, I would just need a bit of time.--Xerxes931 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xerxes931: It was better to clarify the provided diffs/evidences; e.g. if Kami2018 removed a sourced info about ethnicity/background in this edit[152], then his edit is disruptive and problematic without a doubt. So if all of provided diffs are disruptive and POV-pushing, then I suggest topic ban, one month block (minimum), or a final warning by an admin. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly a disruptive pattern. Going through the editor's last ban, I can clearly see that the editor is editing against sourced material. Looking at only edit: 172 & 170 clearly shows the motives which is removing the word "Afghan" everywhere. I think Xerxes931 did not word it well but the editor Kami2018 is clearly editing against sourced material without explanation. Casperti (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly User:Xerxes931 needs to understand that references are very important and if there is no reference then a reference is needed to support the information. One such example of his behavior out of many is what he mentioned himself : [153] - Maybe User:Xerxes931 needs to look at the references and self revert himself as the references say otherwise. Reference in the article clearly states "They were, therefore, ″wrongly looked upon″ as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks." Thankyou Kami2018 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The report clearly includes the removal of sourced information as well, you don’t seem to really understand what you are doing wrong. You are removing the term “Afghan” in every occasion you have from historical articles, it doesn’t matter for you if it’s sourced or not[154] [155]. For your other POV-pushing edits: References are important of course, but if there is an article which literally talks about an Afghan noble, king, general or historical person, you will not need a source for every single time the term Afghan is mentioned there, people well known with the topic would already know the background of the person, that’s why no one changes it besides you, but if your edits really are of good faith, which is hard for me to believe, you can simply put in a “citation needed” for every time you want to remove “Afghan” from an article, I will be there and provide one, but you never chose that as an option but just kept removing “Afghan” from every article you came across which is clearly POV-pushing, removal of sourced information and simply vandalism. --Xerxes931 (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is a complaint about an editor going around and removing mentions of Pashtuns as "Afghans", but if I remember correctly, these mentions were not always reliably sourced to begin with (or were sourced to texts that don't support them). – Uanfala (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The editor in question also deletes sourced "Afghan" mentioning see here: [156]. It is not only the replacement of the word "Afghan", It is clearly that the editor deletes the word "Afghan" everywhere where it sees it. For example in this edit it does not replace the word "Afghan" with "Pashtun" but just deletes "Afghan people": [157]. Furthermore, the user does not care about modern or old definitions of "Afghan" the user deletes the word whenever it can. Does the user only replace the word with Pashtun: No - Does the user delete sourced information: Yes , that said it is pretty clear now that the editor is deleting the word Afghan without giving sources and without starting Talk pages Casperti (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Persistent editing without consensus

• JorgeLaArdilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Dear admins, need advice dealing with JorgeLaArdilla. Recently the user made a string of similar edits to articles about Quranic chapters. I disagree with the edits and started a discussion here [158]. Since then other editors have weighed in and at least two other editors found the edits problematic (with different reasons) and no other editors seemed to support his edits (as of this writing): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras. JorgeLaArdilla responded to the thread, but does not address the point in his replies, started engaging in theological arguments [159], bringing up irrelevant edits not under dispute [160], [161], or even acting borderline inappropriate such as removing criticism against his edits in the talk page [162] or moving them around [163], or calling me "troll" [164]. As for his edits, he continued restoring his contested edits [165] and even adding new ones with the same problems in other articles [166][167][168]. When I reverted the edit, pointing him to the discussion and asking him to not restore without consensus[169], he simply restored the content again without explanation: [170]. When I reverted his modification of other editor's writing in talk page, [171], he also persistently reverted his modification back [172], [173]. I need advice or help dealing with this behavior. Ideally, I think these edits should be discussed and not restored until getting consensus, but it's hard to achieve that when one side keeps restoring the disputed content. HaEr48 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48, I'm sorry, it all sounds pretty disruptive, but fifteen diffs is a lot to carefully investigate. It would help to know what is the primary complaint here, can you give us four or five, or do we really need to investigate all fifteen to understand what's going on? —valereee (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, thank you for looking and sorry for too many diffs. I think the primary complain is that the user persists on making massive edits against consensus, and it's been impossible for a normal editor to undo the damage because he keeps restoring the edits when reverted. Example [174][175][176] I don't mind having to discuss the arguments for/against the changes in Talk, and I have been doing that in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras, but it becomes disruptive when the user insists that his version have to go in without consensus. HaEr48 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48, okay, it looks like we're not quite at edit-warring at As-Sajda, your first diff? And I don't see either of you has opened a section at Talk:As-Sajda, so I'm assuming you haven't done that at the other articles? Do that, ping them there, and if they refuse to discuss, c'mon back. :) —valereee (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, The user did the same thing for so many articles, so I opened a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras in order to centralize the discussion. The user didn't quite "refuse to discuss", they replied by mostly writing theological arguments rather than addressing the actual policy/Wikipedia problems that I brought up. HaEr48 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee: They're doing it again, see [177]. HaEr48 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48, I've full protected for a short time to stop the disruption. Please JorgeLaArdilla discuss. —valereee (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I would make the point that HaEr48 is not just reverting my edits in respect of the disputed E.M. Wherry, he is reverting EVERYTHING that I have done. @Valereee:: you yourself have added back "Ghvvbbhb" gibberish into the Quran 32 article and subsequently ignored the protected edit request. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate Valereee's neutral intevention and apologise. The beauty of Wikipedia is how one can get lost flicking from link to link from popular culture to esoteric and back to the latest football. But sometimes you just hit a wall - Aston Villa's history is woefully lacking and the 114 Quranic chapters just dont "hang together". I understand Wikipedia has got on perfectly well without me before and will do again. I try to understand my very real personality defects and I endeavour to be collegiate. I have been around long enough to know that things do come right in the end. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

JorgeLaArdilla, thank you, I've removed that stray gibberish. I see you're now discussing at the talk, which is great. No apology necessary, you were quite right to point it out! I'm not going to try to deal with protected edit requests unless they have some level of consensus or are noncontroversial, as that'll make me involved in that article as an editor, so you'll have to ask other editors for their opinions on your suggested edit. —valereee (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Saotura and Turkish nationalism, denial of Armenian genocide

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

---

• Saotura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Saotura has been working here for two months on various aspects of Turkish history and politics, especially focusing on violent actions that have taken place between Turks and Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, etc. Saotura persistently downplays or removes historian's negative views against Turkey, especially regarding the Armenian Genocide, and Saotura puts in their place a baffling narrative that the Armenians are acting violently against the Turks for no reason.[178] I first ran into him when he inserted his narrative into the Racism in the United States article, telling the readers that Armenians in the US have been attacking Turks for no reason at all.[179] When Saotura is writing inside an actual Armenian genocide article, he finds ways to put the onus on those who were massacred.[180] Saotura created several categories, templates and articles, and we should be deleting the ones with this taint. His Template:Anti-Turkism was deleted, and his Anti-Turkism in Armenia is at AfD. The latter article contains no mention of the Armenian Genocide, the elephant in the room.

At one point, Saotura's userpage advocated the killing of a living person, Kurdish nationalist leader Abdullah Öcalan.[181] Prior to that, the userpage stated that Saotura was a proud Turkish nationalist, strongly opposed to ethnic separatism.[182]

To me, it appears that Saotura is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. Instead, they are here to push a Turkish nationalist viewpoint, full of denialism and politically motivated revisionism. I don't see how this person can be trusted to contribute neutrally. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Propose site ban of Saotura

• Support. For the time being, I have removed (and rev-deleted) the offensive content from User:Saotura/about_me. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Against when did someone's personal views became a basis for block? Some of the things linked here have nothing wrong in them. For example, this addition used information from a well-cited source. If we used the same logic as you, the denialism in Khojaly massacre article is also a blockable offense, and as you put it, ways to put the onus on those who were massacred. If you want to truly show yourself as a neutral editor who's concern is pushing of a denialist approach, you should've not mentioned that edit. The additions on killing of Turkish diplomats are notable, and it is ok to WP:BOLD the Armenian Genocide factor there. But imo, propagating for a murder of a living person on someone's own wikipedia userpage id worrying and he needs a warning for it, not a block. The deletion of two pages created by him is also an absurd basis for a block. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Taking Saotora's non-existent past blocks, and the fact that he's been here for just over a month, a simple warning would do the trick to encourage him in sticking by the neutrality guidelines and avoiding POV-pushing. I don't think we all were experts on Wikipedia's guidelines when we just started editing here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

when did someone's personal views became a basis for block? At the moment when they start disrupting Wikipedia to push those views. Jeppiz (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you've avoided most of what I wrote here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Idk, I don't want to push his case too far. But imo a block is too big of a move for such events. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, you appear to comment without having bothered to look into the case. You say a warning would suffice - but the user has already been warned several times and continues with highly problematic edits despite the warnings. Jeppiz (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• when did someone's personal views became a basis for block? When they're WP:POVPUSHing genocide denial. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I am still defending my edits on Genocides in history. I didn't even touch the information about WW1 Genocides at all, and the massacres which I deleted weren't classified as genocides in genocides in history article or their own main articles, and there weren't a citation that classifies them as genocides. My edits on Maraga massacre article might be wrong to some extent, however, the problem was with the place where it was mentioned. The information was well-sourced, and the fact that the massacre at Maragha was an act of revenge for Khojaly does deserve a mention in its article. Like how pogrom in Sumgait is mentioned on the Khojaly massacre article and how March Days is mentioned on the September Days article. I am guessing that your problem with the War crimes section on the Franco-Turkish War article is because the Armenian Genocide wasn't mentioned, which can be fixed easily, as long as you have a citation which states that massacres in southern Anatolia at that period were an act of revenge for the genocide. I think I did and mentioned it in the Anti-Turkism in Armenia article sometime after writing the text on the Franco-Turkish War article. I will add it right after finishing writing this text. I am not going to defend anything about Abdullah Öcalan thing. I won't attempt it again and I personally don't think that alone is a reason to block someone forever.-Śαǿturα^💬 18:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Saotura is WP:NOTHERE. He has been warned repeatedly and has just created a long article portraying Armenians as having racist feelings against Turkic people (like all Turkic people) while they are mainly against Turkish (from Turkey) and Azerbaijani (from Azerbaijan) perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. The opposite is Turkish, Azerbaijani nationalist POV.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Making excuses for genocide in this very thread is itself inexcusable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

this is the edit Saotura defends. Removing info on the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian Genocide... sourced with a well known scholar on the topic and also even books with a title referring to the Ottoman Genocides of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians. He removed more, too in this edit. I didn't believe David Eppstein, so I double checked and I encourage anyone to do so, too.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The citations itself were reliable, no one opposess that. And yes, the book Ottoman Genocides of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians referred to incidents, but didn't name them genocides. The word genocide in title refers to WW1 horrors. Past massacres such as massacres of Assyrians by Kurds in Hakkari and anti-Armenian pogroms in Adana were mentioned in the book, as it should be since they obviously have an important place in understanding background of the genocides, but they weren't named genocides. That was basis of removing those incidents from the article. -Śαǿturα^💬 20:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Saotura made me double check again, and summaries of chapters in the book Genocide in the Ottoman Empire: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, 1913-1923 (the reference he removed beside some info about the Greek, Armenian and Assyrian Genocide) at JSTOR (free to join) clearly mention Genocide referring to the Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians. The other books then I didn't double check as well, but in the title one also mentions Ottoman Genocides of Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE; even the above comment by Saotura is a sign of future violation of WP:NOT. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support WP:POVPUSHing genocide denial, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support as blatantly being WP:NOTHERE. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 15:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Against When did someone's personal views became a basis for block? Sincerely: Wallking1 (talk), 00:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above to the exact same question asked with the exact same grammatical error: When they're WP:POVPUSHing genocide denial. Also note that Wallking1 has been blocked below for Armenian-related edit-warring. Also their editing history looks mighty sus, especially when combined with their parroting another user's phrasing above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Against This user was never blocked and should not blocked indef first time . He should get a warning from an admin. Shadow4dark (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Quoting Jeppiz above: the user has already been warned several times and continues with highly problematic edits despite the warnings - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - it's obvious that, unfortunately, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to push a frankly abhorrent POV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support — this user's behaviour is getting more and more worrying and even with this discussion still being open (s)he countinues with the same energy on the Armenia/Armenian Genocide related pages. Continuously removes [Armenian] sourced content from pages instead of tagging WP:CITENEED so other editors find a better source for it, changes facts, presents the Genocide as a "justification", adds odd wording to the leads (like A pogrom was a "revenge" for B pogrom [183]) and so on. I'm glad some of the admins have also noticed this user's intentions and will take necessary actions against it, because Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a WP:BATTLEGROUND for POV pushing and hate speech out of nationalism. LevonAUS9 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support for genocide denial POV-pushing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

• Against lol then people asking why Wikipedia is blocked in Turkey? This place is transforming from a world-wide encyclopedia into more of an ethnic gang article hotbed. Blocking someone who writes hunderds of articles = D are you serious?. I think people should know how admins treat Turkish editors before asking why wikipedia is blocked in Turkey...So ridiculous at least gave the man a temporary block. So much effort has passed for this site. total injustice and tyranny.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu Uninvolved however, denying the Armenian genocide, apology for atrocities, and being a proponent of ethnic cleansing isn't allowed. Its impossible to build an open encyclopedia with such people, Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey because of censorship something which Wikipedia has never changed its position. I don't know much on this editor but it seems he clearly isn't to build an encyclopedia. Vallee01 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 and dablinks

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a history of problematic edits when fixing link to disambiguation pages. This resulted in an ANI thread in 2018: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive982#Onel5969, mistakes in automated edits, and problematic attitude, where there was support for a time-limited topic ban from semiatomated dablink edits. The ban didn't get formally enacted because Onel5969 voluntarily agreed to stop editing in this area. However, several months later he went back to the old pattern of editing. I brought that up on his talk page at the time, and from then onwards I've tried to keep to pinging him from my edit summaries whenever I've had to correct after an edit he'd made to a page on my watchlist.

Now, two years on, and after recent talk page posts by Ionmars10 in September and by me from two weeks ago, I don't think I see any improvement. Here's a few examples just from the last 24 hrs:

• [184] here he appears to have arbitrarily picked one of the two languages with the name, and apparently the incorrect one
• [185] of the only two entries on the dab page – for an ethnic group and a language – he's decided to pick the language to link to inside an obvious list of ethnic groups
• [186] here the links were intentional dablinks so didn't need fixing at all (some may not have been optimal, but even then Onel5969's intervention was dubious: Naqvi (disambiguation), for example, should have just been changed to Naqvi instead of completely unlinked)
• [187] [188] incorrectly linking to the surname when the term "Rao" is used as a prefix before a name, and so is obviously a title.

Now, some of these errors might be brushed off as accidental misjudgements in borderline cases, but many are of a type it's difficult to imagine could be made by anyone who's actually looked at a link before changing it, such as the language/ethnicity one above, or this "fix" from two weeks ago which altered the article text to suggest that the Iranian city of Herat was besieged by an army of Japanese ghosts.

The underlying problems, in my opinion, are that he doesn't take enough care when fixing links, and that when editors then point that out he doesn't respond constructively. The latter issue doesn't affect only dablinks: even when he doesn't go as far as dishing out insults (like removing a talk page post by an annoyed newbie with the edit summary "rev utter moron", or removing a perfectly calm and civil explanation by an experienced editor with the edit summary "Remove ignorance"), he has a tendency to ban editors from his talk page at the slightest hint of criticism, whatever the topic. He's banned me from his talk page too (after I commented about some of his draftifications), and that's one reason I've ended up here. I'm not sure what can be done about this side of the problem.

However, at least the pattern of bad dablinks can be tackled by a topic ban. In the ANI discussion from two years ago, I opposed this solution, instead opting for a voluntary mentorship with an editor experienced in the area, but now I'm convinced this will not work. So, my proposal is for a topic ban from dedicated dablink fixing. This will still allow for common-sense exception, like fixing the occasional link he may come across at NPP, or on articles that he's substantially improving. Thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin sidenote) The bad link to Rao (surname) in Pataudi was introduced on 22 June 2011, by a multiple laureate in the DAB Hall of Fame. That and the other links to Rao (surname) have only come to light at all because Rao (surname) was (correctly) moved to Rao (Indian surname) and the resulting redirect retargetted to the DAB page on 17 December 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That edit of 2011 wasn't as obviously bad at the time, because Rao (title) didn't exist yet. But otherwise yeah, Onel replaced one bad link with another bad link, can't completely blame him for that. Though if he'd looked at the text immediately surrounding the link rather than just what's inside the square brackets (which he's supposed to anyway) he should have been able to catch that. – Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a rather harsh punishment. But I will not object against a limited ban on the use of the various automation options. The Banner talk 22:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Any one never made mistakes or was bypassed by time?

I'm more hesitant to punish someone for making mistakes tackling a massive and mostly thankless cleanup task. I would just mark this caution as having been given. User:Onel5969, are you sufficiently chastised? BD2412 T 02:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, hi and thanks for the ping. I stand chastised. Although I would like to point out that in at least one of the instances, the dab didn't follow MOS:DABONE, and I simply did not consider that there was more than one link on the line. Folks make mistakes, and while I try not to, obviously I could do better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Is this really something to be reporting somebody about fixing disambiguation hyperlinks? It seems to be acting in good faith he simply made a mistake when linking things, its not a particularly big issue to even be making a mistake on. Vallee01 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Petebutt

• Petebutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It is with a very heavy heart that I have finally been forced to ask for admin help at this venue. I have been editing Wikipedia for just over 13 years and this is the first time that I have had to submit an ANI report, I would appreciate it if my concerns are taken seriously. If I am told 'to move on and not worry about it' then that will be the end of my voluntary contributions on Wikipedia.

User:Petebutt has a long history of editing against consensus, non-use of edit summaries, frequently moving pages and templates without discussion (often requiring admin assistance to undo the move to an erroneous title). Other odd behaviour includes use of convert templates to produce conversions to five or more decimal places (false precision) and filling articles with unencyclopedic jargon/technical details.

A very pressing problem is the continual changing of established citation style against WP:CITEVAR. The user firmly believes that cite templates are mandatory because 'they are provided' as some kind of editing tool (which I can't find myself). In addition to changing the format of citations the bibliography sections are also being changed to list books and other sources in a templated style. A very clear example of this is here, I am aware that I created this article but do not own it, in common with the other articles that I have created.

This problem has been highlighted many times on the user talk page by myself and other editors (including User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Nigel Ish and User:NiD.29). My visits to that talk page are listed here, they go back to 2011. More recently the CITEVAR guideline text was highlighted directly, another editor highlights the same problem, a different editor requests the same here.

Another editor comments here and here with the reply 'I use what is mandated in the edittools'. An entry on my own talk page highlights problems and incivility with reversion of mistakes and citation style.

Resolution: The user to be reminded of CITEVAR conventions and to strictly abide by them in future, to use edit summaries and discontinue moving article pages and templates without discussion (there is an active community of very informed and sensible editors at WT:AIR, it is rare that an aircraft article page needs moving as conventions are very well established.) I believe it is fair to say that multiple polite requests to change this behaviour have failed and that fair warning of ANI reporting has been given . Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since this is here, I will comment that in my (sometimes spotty) editing over the years I have not observed any change in Petebutt's editing style over that entire time, despite numerous pleas when his edits are reverted for making articles less readable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's equally strange to continue the behaviour by edit warring after notice of an incident report has been given. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Further... this, this, and this indicate a profound misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. I wanted to avoid mentioning WP:COMPETENCE but I've thought of it when reverting Pete's edits in the past and frankly those two make it an unavoidable postulation, especially since nearly two years after the first claim he re-makes the same claim after being told he was wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Continued edit warring with a personal attack in the edit summary. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that I have had to deal with this editor for more than the last decade and we have had many discussions about his editing. I have had to revert his edits on many, many occasions, as non-constructive. I have had to fix his edits on literally thousands of occasions. I have had to reverse his illogical page moves on many occasions, too. Overall this editor's few useful contributions are overshadowed by the huge amount of work he creates in dealing with his bad edits. This is not a new problem for Wikipedia, as it is precisely outlined in observation #3 in User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. In far more than a decade that this editor has been working on WikiProject Aircraft the one outstanding feature has been his complete resistance to comply with consensus or, in fact to any input at all. Leaving him talk page notes results in sort of vague apologies and no improvements at all. As Antandrus notes, after all this time it is probably time to seriously look at an indef block, so the rest of us can spend more time writing then encyclopedia instead of endlessly correcting his inability to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy, guidance, consensus or in fact to change at all. There is a persistent WP:COMPETENCE issue here that won't be simply addressed with a "good talking to". - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there's a competence issue; I have no idea what he means by "edittools" and if the APA style is required that's news to me. That said, I do not understand preferring manual conversions to using {{convert}}. I'm not doubting that the manual conversions are correct, but why? That's a change I would make on any article, in all innocence, and not expect any trouble over it (same for citations, frankly, but if only because manual citations tend to be incomplete and I appreciate that's not the case here). Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe the primary issue is that it often produces too many decimal points of precision in the conversion, at least the way Pete uses it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that @Petebutt: has continued to edit ignoring this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The Bushranger is correct on conversion template usage, there are two reasons for this, Template:Aircraft specs had a fault where feet, inches and fractions of inches could produce a metric output of up to seven decimal places e.g. 1.0000001 metres. This would normally be spotted by using 'show preview' and reading through, there is provision in the template to manually enter a sensible conversion and a recent fix was to add a significant figure limit parameter. The second reason is that Template:Convert has various rounding options and usually defaults to the rounding of the input value. When this template is used by Petebutt the rounding parameter is edited to produce the opposite effect resulting in false precision.

After this discussion a bot found approximately 2,000 articles with broken template coding, it was able to repair approximately 1,500 and the remainder were corrected by myself and other editors over a couple of days. The main result of the broken template coding was to hide converted values completely. The editor in this report has been replacing this deprecated template at high speed, introducing errors. In this April 2019 edit (with no edit summary) lb and kg were transposed, an IP editor spotted it recently and I corrected it. I could not say exactly how many of these templates were added by this editor (my priority was to repair them, not research who added them), a high proportion would be my best estimate.

This editor uses a form of Template:Aircraft specs with extra parameters of their own pre-loaded (which do not have inbuilt conversion function), the template was developed with consensus to determine an encyclopedic level of completable fields, we can not add every single known specification detail of an aircraft per WP:NOTMANUAL.

Ordinarily I would not contest the use of Template:Convert (as mentioned above) but as this editor uses them inappropriately and makes mistakes they all have to be checked and corrected, this has become too time consuming so the practical solution is to undo the whole edit (this also undoes the citation style changes introduced in the same edit). To my knowledge the wording of Template:Convert usage is 'can be used', not must, shall or should be used. Apologies if this explanation is on the long side but the details of the problems need to be explained in context for them to be appreciated. I ought to add a note (before I am told) that I am not perfect myself, it is very easy to make mistakes in technical articles but I am quite happy to be corrected by others without protest if and when it happens. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Nimbus227, thank you for that very thorough explanation, I understand the problem now and your approach to addressing it. It's easy to forget that there's a whole context surrounding an edit that's lost when looking at a solitary diff. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• It seems to me that an indefinite block is appropriate, with the unblock condition being that the user acknowledge the issues with their behaviour and explain in detail how they will act in future. I see no other solution with a user who continues making mass edits with unchanged behaviour after editors try their hardest to explain the issues and raise discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly support that action now despite my earlier, over hopeful, resolution suggestions. Continuing to edit and ignore this incident report shows that there is no respect for the community and no intention to change behaviour. It is clear now that all the talk page requests to follow convention were actually a complete waste of everyone's time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have blocked Petebutt from editing (article) space, at least until them come here and discuss the issue and hopefully provide assurances that things will improve. The block may be modified as appropriate without consulting me further. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

To be justice on Nay Shwe Thway Aung

• Nay Shwe Thway Aung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nay Shwe Thway Aung

Hello dear editors and admins,

Firstly, I don't like Nay Shwe Thway Aung even I don't hate it! Former dictator Than Shwe's grandson Nay Shwe Thway Aung is the most hated person in Myanmar. Because he used abusive powers during his grandfather's rule. Do a Google search for more information. 95% of Burmese hate him. Now, his Wikipedia article put in AfD by SOCKLEGIT account. His actions are dishonest because the nominator removed many contents from the article after AfD. I'm not sure What does he want to do?

I think this is not a problem yet. But the real problem is many IP addresses (nothing edit on other articles) are trying to vote 'Delete' on the AfD. There is clearly WP:IDONTLIKE. IMO, He is clearly notable as a Public figure and tycoon. He had power when Than Shwe was in power. He has a lot of significant coverage and reliable source enough for GNG and WP:BASIC, see the source in AfD discussion. So I would like to CU request on IPs and accounts in the AfD discussion. I think this Afd is not fair. Votes from Myanmar Users and IPs should not be counted. Only editors from other countries should determine his notability. I'm fine that this article was deleted, but I want it to be fair. 65.18.127.111 (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. AfD is not a popularity contest, but a strength of argument and Wikipedia policies. Nothing will be deleted because a bunch of new accounts or IPs vote to delete it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that some people !voting have had their votes struckthrough apparently just for being SPAs instead of confirmed socks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

well, by common sense the same ip range.... it does not pass duck test? (the same faking as registered user in the signature) You can ask admin to have their opinion in WP:SPI, but general user of the wiki can idenify them as duck....Matthew hk (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Matthew hk about the Burmese IPs. I created a single-purpose account called User:SSH remoteserver to do the deletion and hide my main account (due to incidents involving the subject of that article attacking people in real life). However, a Burmese IP soon created an account named TDH Skypaper and copied everything from my userpage. Then, socks descended to that deletion discussion. 73.170.255.4 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To admin: The attacks by the IP 65.18.127.111 (in Burmese) are extremely vicious and threatening. He also outed User:Hybernator for no reason. I am not User:Hybernator at all. You can use Google Translate to get a general sense of it but you won't know the real meaning unless you speak Burmese. 73.170.255.4 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Well Well, The Best Wikipedia Actor Award to 73.170.255.4. Burmese IPs and all accounts are members of your group. I already know that. (Hybernator လို့လဲ ငါ အစထဲကမထင်ဘူး (သူMilitary ဆောင်ပါးတွေနဲ့ စစ်သင်္ဘောအကြောင်း editတာ လူတိုင်းသိတယ်) ငါက နင့်ကို အားနာပြီး စကားလမ်းကြောင်း လွဲလိုက်တာ, Just cmt, no rude) 65.18.126.147 (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Also As a pro-editor, Matthew hk is seen to be biased on this case. Shameless. see. 03:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is really bizarre. I've never edited the article; I didn't even know it existed until moments ago. The message in Burmese is indeed very rude and a bunch of rambling ad hominem attacks. Somehow the IP is bragging that his arguments should stick because he/she is so wealthy and privileged. What kind of logic is this!? Ok, you're wealthy. So what? Anyway, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't know the subject well enough to comment either way. Hybernator (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hybernator နင် မဟုတ်ဘူးလို့ ငါအပေါ်မေ ပြောထားတယ်လေ? ±ဘာတွေ ပေရှည်နေတာလဲ? ပွဲ မကြီးကြီးအောင်မလုပ်နဲ့ ငါလဲ ဒီကိစ္စဝင်မပါတော့ဘူးပြောထားတေလေ, adminတေ ဆူံးဖြတ်လိမ့်မယ် ကို့ဘာသာ ဆောင်းပါးရေးနေလိုက် ပွဲ လာမရှာနဲ့ ငါက အခွင့်ထူးခံအနေနဲ့ ဒီပွဲကိုရပ်ဖို့ ချိန်းခြောက်တယ် ဆိုပဲ ဟာသနော် ငါ ဘယ်မှာပြောခဲ့လဲ မတရားတာကို မတရားလို့ ဝင်ပါတာ, နင်လဲ မတရားတာသိသိနဲ့ မီးလောင်ရာလေပင့်နေတာ ရှက်သင့်တယ်65.18.126.147 (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@65.18.126.147: This is the English language Wikipedia. Please communicate in English. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to get involved in these problems anymore, it is life threatening for me! Because of my real identity. I'm leaving now. Good bye. 65.18.126.147 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Anyway the Afd nominator seems not a legit use of sock , as the account did not disclose the master account as required by policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification. Filed a SPI. Matthew hk (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

IP editor doesn't seem to be getting the message

• 173.3.236.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

173.3.236.8 has, over a duration of 7 months, accumulated 8 warnings and 2 blocks for unsourced content or deliberate factual errors, all from different editors/admins. Their talk page is a slew of warnings to stop, and yet time and time again, despite a block for a week, and a block for a month, they've continued on with this. The contributions page of the IP speaks volumes already, not to mention I'm pretty sure there's at least a good few edits that slipped through the cracks without sourcing. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You should state the diff for recent edit, like within this week or within 3 days before today. Matthew hk (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, they're listed here. [189], [190], and [191] just this week. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sent level 4 warning. May be AIV again would help. Matthew hk (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

And it is stale (24hr) again despite seem a static ip. Also some recent edit may be good edit and does not need revert and issue warning. Matthew hk (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspecting brand promotion

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

---

1 Toddy1 has recently reverted deletion of NDTV Tagline Experience. Truth First from the header of page NDTV.

2 A Tagline is a branding slogan that states, "As a variant of a branding slogan, taglines can be used in marketing materials and advertising".

3 Admin may pl refer this discussion on the talk page of NDTV [[192]] where Toddy1 has not actively & logically discussed his revert. Instead he edited the header as "NDTV's slogan is "Experience. Truth First"", where the user provided an incorrect wiki link of Vision statement for NDTV's slogan.

4 Later in that discussion other users asked him to provide wp:rs citation mentioning the phrase Experience. Truth First is NDTV Vision statement but Toddy1 has failed to provide any.

5 Inspite of support of deletion of the slogan from the header from other users and under the watch of admins, he failed to provided any reasonable justification for point number 4 and 2 above.

6 At this point of time it is suspected that some sort of brand promotion is being going on. As in compliance of WP:NOTABOUTYOU & WP:NOTPROMOTION mentioning of anything which has a clear definition of brand promotion is against the policy of wikipedia.

7 Admin are being requested to look into this matter plz. Thanks. SagittariusAstarJ (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@SagittariusAstarJ: Your page says your account was created 7 days ago. Did you have an account before this? Vikram Vincent 07:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment there is a surge of seemingly new accounts on the talk page. suspected off-wiki coordinated activity. In any case, this is a content issue and can be resolved by seeking consensus. since the tagline in question was part of NDTV page for a very long time, a better way would be to seek consensus on Talk page for removal of the line, not the other way around. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@SagittariusAstarJ: I find it very difficult to believe your claim on my talk page that you are new to Wikipedia Special:MobileDiff/995509512. Your citing of rules shows you have been here longer than 7-8 days. Do you have any other account? Was it banned for any reason? I'm sure you know that it is not impossible to figure it out, right? Vikram Vincent 12:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have referred to this report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoJo Rabbit11. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, we might have some users around willing to promote Indian media companies, but Toddy1 is absolutely not one of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment Awaiting admins response on the sameSagittariusAstarJ (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@SagittariusAstarJ: Ymblanter is an admin. Have a nice day.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the filer as a sock of JoJo Rabbit11 based on behavioral evidence.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP

Hi. 185.190.132.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has received plenty of warnings and is still editing disruptively, updating appearance numbers in the infobox without updating timestamps. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the notification, @Shirt58:. I forgot. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is ongoing. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I partially blocked the IP to prevent editing articles for a week, and posted at their talk to encourage discussion. Please check that talk page to see if they respond. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot

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

Pasdecomplot was last month subject of an ANI thread (archived here), which concluded with a community-imposed one-month block (which expired a few days ago), and a community-imposed editing restriction from commenting on the motivations of other editors anywhere other than at ANI. Today, in a discussion at WP:RSN about the reliability of the Tibetan Political Review, they made this comment, which includes the following: All of which makes the continued pushback on the author and on the journal seem rather out of balance with RS standards, especially since the same editors are pushing to replace Tibetan Political Review with a source by Radio Free Asia, which is super curious given several of those editor's views on RFA, as found in RSN archive 313. Apart from being off-topic (it says nothing about the reliability of TPR), I interpret that as implying that the other editors involved in the thread are being hypocritical in how they are treating the two sources, and it falls squarely within the type of behaviour that their TBan was intended to put a stop to.

I went to Pasdecomplot's talk page to tell them that I thought they were in breach of their TBan, and ask them to withdraw that specific paragraph. The full discussion can be read at User_talk:Pasdecomplot#Your_editing_restriction, but to summarise, they modified the statement slightly, but refused to withdraw the commentary on other editors comments about a different source, and told me that they don't think this type of comment is covered by their TBan.

For me, it is unequivocal - this is off-topic commentary about other users being 'super curious' - I can't say for certain what they're intending to imply by 'super curious' - whether that's duplicitous, or hypocritical, or in some other way underhand. However, in a discussion that ought to be about sourcing, content and policy, there is no place for comments like that from any editor, far less one who is subject to an editing restriction of this type. Since Pasdecomplot disagrees, I am asking the community to comment on whether or not this type of behaviour is covered by their ban. Since I am asking for clarification of the exact intent of a recent discussion, I am pinging those editors who were involved in that discussion to allow them to clarify their positions: Valereee, ProcrastinatingReader, Tide rolls, EdJohnston, Cullen328, Levivich, Wugapodes, Pawnkingthree. Also pinging Barkeep49, who closed that discussion and implemented the consensus. Thanks in advance GirthSummit _(blether) 13:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The original quote you've given above I would say does, as it reads like editors are being biased. Anything that could imply that editors are acting in bad faith or attempting to push a POV is a violation, in my view.

The amended comment is: All of which makes the continued dispute on the author and on the journal seem somewhat out of balance with RS standards. I might point out that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia, in contradiction to those editor's previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313. What the replacement indicates is RFA is considered more reliable than Tibetan Political Review. (Wording changed per request by Girth Summit)

This wording is slightly confusing to me, but it reads more like "these editors have supported X wording sourced to Y source, and so they consider Y source reliable. But Y source is not more reliable than Z source." which I would not say is a violation, rather an argument on content (that Z source is more reliable than Y). It may be a slightly fallacious argument, but that wouldn't make it a TBAN violation. If your view is also that these two comments are materially distinct, then I think it's worth giving the benefit of doubt to shabby wording as PDC claims at the linked discussion. I'll note I've only skimmed this discussion.

At the same time, the wording you proposed on his talk is far clearer of the boundaries here. If I were PDC I'd tailor my wording very carefully, and always opt for the less implicative wording where there are multiple ways of wording something. AGF is a style of thinking that reflects in writing, not the other way around, so imo unless you genuinely believe that editors are acting in semi-good faith I think it's very difficult to comply with this restriction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, ah - it seems that they changed the text to that while I was drafting this. I didn't receive the ping, since they didn't sign that post; I checked their talk page prior to submitting this to see if they'd replied again, but I should have checked back at RSN to see if they'd acted. I agree that the wording, as it currently stands, is better. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even after PDC's amendments (diff) to their RSN comment, their comments about other editors' positions about Radio Free Asia are still off-topic and also seem to misrepresent other editors' comments. None of the RSN thread participants had mentioned RFA at RSN or at Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism, nor have any of them said at the archived RSN thread that PDC refers to that RFA is unreliable. Only Esiymbro and Normchou said anything about RFA at the Nyingchi talk page and they haven't participated in the RSN thread.

After the revision, PDC still left unaltered the other implication of hypocrisy against El komodos drago in their RSN comment:

Additionally, El D also happens to find Chinese state-run Xinhua accurate in a current RSN [193] yet has issues with Tibetan Political Review? Xinhua's reporting in 2008 alone revealed it as a complete disinformation outlet.

It just seems very off-topic for the RSN thread about the Tibetan Political Review where nobody else has mentioned RFA or Xinhua – the only relation is that one of the editors at the RSN thread may have commented about those sources in the past. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ProcrastinatingReader, it's exactly as you wrote, "these editors have supported X wording sourced to Y source, and so they consider Y source reliable. But Y source is not more reliable than Z source." which I would not say is a violation, rather an argument on content The intention was a discussion on content and reliability, and I apologise if the edits were misunderstood. Girth Summit has already posted the thread from user talk, after which I again edited to address their concerns and pinged for their approval. I respectfully submit my ongoing concern to the community about the fact the ban can be interpreted as it was today, and we're all spending time to review interpretations. I apologise for the lack of clarity in the original edit, since it permitted another interpretation to occur. I will humbly take the advice to be even more careful that all edits do not allow room for such interpretations, I will be even more careful with exact wording to describe edits, content and sources. Thank you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a note: CaradhrasAiguo and Valereee and MarkH21 participated in the RSN archive 313, where comments of RFA were made. The first editor has often made comments as to their reliability on various edits. And please note that RFA remains after several reverts by editors Nyingchi#Economy, including MarkH21. The interpretation of hypocracy has already respectfully been addressed at RSN, and the editor invited me to comment at the other RSN, which should not be the cause additional worries. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't know why the ping didn't go through, except for that the re-edits occurred after the timestamp:(Wording changed per request by Girth Summit)[User:Pasdecomplot From 14:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Readded edit from 14:26 that's being refracted [194]) Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo is indefinitely blocked and cannot comment on the RSN thread, while neither Valereee nor I have said that RFA is reliable or unreliable at the archived RSN thread. There isn't a single editor in the current RSN thread who said anything to support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia, in contradiction to those editor's previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313, so it is a misrepresentation of other editors' comments. The off-topic questioning of El D's views about Xinhua is also unaddressed.

Keeping your comments focused about the actual discussion topics, refraining from commenting about other editors' views on other topics, and double-checking what you claim other editors have said will keep discussions moving along smoothly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, based on various arguments PDC has made (like at Talk:Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima#Requested_move_24_October_2020 and a related move request at Talk:11th Panchen Lama controversy), I think they believe that RSN thread ended with consensus that International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, Free Tibet and Radio Free Asia were all declared in that RSN to be reliable sources because that RSN didn't specifically declare any of them to be not RS. What the discussion actually seemed to me to have consensus on was that we needed to discuss them each individually, but PDC has been arguing that Free Tibet is a RS for Tibetan Buddhism & China ever since. —valereee (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree the original statement is problematic, and would have been fine with simply bringing it to PDC's attention so they could fix it. I agree the revision is better, though still not great. But my bigger concern is the pushback from PDC at their talk, arguing that "it's super curious to me" is "totally valid given the ongoing saga at Ningchi." I agree with PDC that further precision/clarification is clearly needed. —valereee (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just so the community understands, what I try to humorously term as a "saga" at Nyingchi began with reverts and a AN3 re CaradhrasAiguo (now indeffed as I read above). It was declined, and talk page discussions ensued at Nyingchi. Various editors participated, then more, then the RSN. Reedited information with RFA (by Normchou and not reverted) remains at Nyingchi under a different subtitle Nyingchi#Economy. Fyi, here's info on RFA at RSN archive 313: I suggest this section be closed henceforth. Radio Free Asia, which actually purports to be a news agency, can be the subject of the first separate discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) The general agreement there, led by MarkH21, with comments by Valereee, was that all needed inline citations and sources from RS at minimum. But, the closing stated all needed separate RSN's. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• And, not having time to file separate RSN's I've been adhering to MarkH21's general statements while allowing for individual cases, as also noted in the archive. Thus, the concerns about other editors using RFA at Nyingchi.
• Please note that the statement above, I think they believe that RSN thread ended with consensus that...were all declared in that RSN to be reliable sources could not be more incorrect as a position on what I believe. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Do people want my views on this and if so which part? ~ El D. (talk to me) 16:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  @El komodos drago: Sure, on any part you'd like to give your views on. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record, with regards to Pasdecomplot's reference to me, I do not feel that it was relevant to the current RSN or to the process of building an encyclopedia in general but I take a broad interpretation of AGF and am willing to believe Pasdecomplot intended the point to be relevant. I have no understanding of how WP:AN works or what a TBAN is so I have no opinion on any particular outcome. I am eternally appreciative of the cool of the administrators who work here (and Wikipedia as a whole), and I will leave it to them. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In response to Girth's request for clarification: yes, I think the quoted original comment is a comment about editors that is prohibited (and noting that the "comment-on-edits-not-editors tban" really applies to everyone per pillars and policy). Really in an RSN thread or article talk page (i.e., outside a noticeboard like ANI), there should be no reason to have "editor" be the subject or object of any sentence. In this case, in "editors are pushing", "editors" is the subject of the verb "pushing". And in "which is super curious given several of those editor's views", "editor's views" is the object of the preposition "given". Grammar lesson aside, these constitute discussing editors and their motivations, plus there's the implication of hypocrisy. The revised wording is better, but still not really OK, because the subject of the sentence is still editors, and it's still implying if not hypocrisy then inconsistency between editors' current and past views. This is unhelpful in a content dispute. It doesn't matter if editors are inconsistent or hypocrites or outright liars or POV pushers. None of that affects whether or not a source is reliable. Do they have good arguments/evidence about the reliability of a source? That's all that matters. Hitler himself could make a damn good argument for the reliability of a source; an argument shouldn't be discounted because of who is making it or what they said/did in the past. There's really no cause to bring up editors' prior views if we're discussing edits not editors. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I just would like to clarify that the issue I didn't express correctly was the reliability of RFA as versus Tibetan Political Review, and was not trying to comment on motivations of the editors themselves, but rather on stated or implied consensus as they apply to issues of CON for reliability. Again, I will be ever more careful and cautious on wording.

Being that the language of the ban used "commenting on motivations" and did not include 'implying motivations' or 'edits that could be interpreted as implying motivation', I did not approach the issue at RSN with enough care or consideration of possible interpretations. Again, it's now very clear and I offer sincere apologies to all.Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, now that you understand, are you willing to make the changes Girth Summit was originally requesting on your user talk? —valereee (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Newer aspersions

• FYI: PDC's new comment at GeneralNotability's talk page accuses editor AdoTang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of following a pattern of editing articles pertaining to Tibet, with Chinese POV, and therefore of being a sockpuppet of Lieutenant of Melkor/Caradhras Aiguo: I think Chucky (a nickname) might still be here.
  This does not appear to exactly conform to a six-month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. It seems that PDC's interpretation of other editors' motivations is incredibly narrow, even after PDC clarified that they now understand it to mean edits that could be interpreted as implying motivation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hildeoc's insult

• Hildeoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Till Kraemer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Pornopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the Pornopedia article, Hildeoc removed a section that has been there since 2013. Apparently, nobody was bothered by this section except Hildeoc. I reverted his edit since I don't see how it would have improved the article. I wrote on his talk page, he reverted my edit in the article, removed my messages on his talk page and insulted me by adding "By the way, you're disgusting." to the edit summary. If you feel like his edit was justified or not, there is definitely no way to talk to me like that. Looks like Hildeoc and multiple of his sockpuppet accounts are also banned on the German Wikipedia indefinitely. Thanks and cheers, --Till Kraemer (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JFTR, I do admit that my comment – whether if reflects my actual opinion of the reporter's character or not – was inappropriate and unnecessary, and that I have never before become personal here at all. Independently, though, I very much agree that the reporter's demeanor is obviously highly self-promotional and probably not of much value in terms of improving the project …--Hildeoc (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Till Kraemer created an article about his company and mentions himself in it. That is against the rules. He also has no edits that don't involve him mentioning himself or his company. Dream Focus 19:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, creating an article is against the rules but calling me "disgusting" is fine? And of course I have also other edits which you would know if you would have checked my edit history more thoroughly. --Till Kraemer (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are some links to other edits of me which shows that you're simply wrong: [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201]... --Till Kraemer (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You might also want to check my edits on Commons. --Till Kraemer (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

And why do you ask for a speedy deletion of my article when a very similar request has already been denied by an admin? --Till Kraemer (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware that 9 years ago someone else tried to speedy delete it. The talk page only mentions the time in October 2009 it was deleted before you recreated it again. Your edits show you working on one article about yourself that you created, and another article you created for your company, and adding in links to them in various places. Some of the few edits you made over the years were for other minor things. So I should've said you had no "substantial" edits that aren't related to yourself or your company. Dream Focus 20:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

If you would have checked my edits on Commons you would know that the majority of those edits have nothing to do with me or my company. Also, just to avoid any potential confusion: the Pornopedia article that has been deleted before was about a different website and I had nothing to do with that article. --Till Kraemer (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Till, please stop going on about Commons. This is the English Wikipedia, and within it we just discuss what happens on the English Wikipedia. Exactly the same applies to discussion pages on Commons, the German Wikipedia etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornopedia (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Till Kraemer are where the discussion about this guy's articles are now being held at. His edits on commons he mentions are just uploading pictures of porn stars. Anyway, he is here to use Wikipedia for promotion not to help build an encyclopedia. Dream Focus 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• A pretty stern warning about COI editing is probably merited, too, regardless of what happens with these articles. Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Addictedtohistory and the user's behaviour about personal attacks

• Addictedtohistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user sends so many distracting and irrelevant messages to Solavirum and CuriousGolden although the users stated that they have not any intentions about insulting the user. Although the user has been warned several times by the users, I don't think there's a stop since I clearly understand from the last diff. Ahmetlii (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Distracting and irrelevant messages?

• I left discretionary sanction alert on CuriousGolden and Solavirum talk pages, based on active editing on Armenia, Azerbaijan conflict topic. That's simply helpful. Though CuriousGolden had already received it during past 12 month, which I was not aware of.
• Solavirum got WP:NPA after personaly targeting me [[202]] [[203]] and just kept going [[204]] and here he argues that there is nothing personal about e.g. You've recently been involved in denialism of tragedies committed by the Armenian people. Avoid doing that from now on
• Please provide links to those many distracting and irrelevant messages other then those aforementioned by me. Addictedtohistory (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the diffs you provided meet the criteria of what's a personal attack on the WP:NPA page, in my opinion. And it seems like you first called his edits which were done after a discussion "disruptive", which prompted the response in the 2nd diff you provided. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:POV Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence quoted from No_personal_attacks. You've recently been involved in denialism of tragedies committed by the Armenian people quoted from Solavirum edit linked above. So, I prompted the derogatory reply who are you to call them disruptive?, quote from diff, right? Addictedtohistory (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've thoroughly stated that your edit history is enough basis for that. Stating that someone has been involved in denialism isn't a violation of the guidelines, as others have used such remarks throughout this thread as well. Now, as your publicly published edits are not something personal to you, you falsely sending inappropriate warnings to others just to prove something is abusing the functions. Let me remind you that you called my edits, which were published after a discussion with non-Azerbaijani users on Talk:Shusha, disruptive. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My edit history is enough to conclude that I'm ...involved in denialism of tragedies committed by the Armenian people'? You keep justifying that derogatory statements and personal accusations against an editor are justified? And now you accuse me of ...falsely sending inappropriate warnings to others. I clarified above what I've done. I don't see anything in the thread provided by you that would justify WP:NPA. I'll wait for an admin to advice. Addictedtohistory (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Peacemaker67 Please, advice

Admin, please consider also false accusations by Ahmetlii. He states "...although the users stated that they have not any intentions about insulting the user", insinuating that I WP:NPA warned several users, without providing any diffs. Only Solavirum was WP:NPA warned by me, for the reasons elaborated above.Addictedtohistory (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Lake Van

• Lake Van (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wallking1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Lake Van has a long history of attempts to remove mentions of the Armenian Highlands from the article. Until recently this has mostly been done by IPs, and the article has previously been semi-protected because of it. Today Wallking1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently been removing those mentions, despite reversions by both Sumanuil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and myself. Some admin attention might be appropriate. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've put in a request for page protection. Waiting on a response. - Sumanuil (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I've already listed the Kingdom names in the History Section. Please stop claiming that Van is Armenia Highland in 2020. It's really offending. Your source is from 1895. It is the same as calling Armenia "Ottoman District" by giving source from 1900. Thanks, Wallking1 (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's the name of the plateau the lake is on, as I've told you. How is it "offensive"? - Sumanuil (talk)

The van lake is in the "Van Lake district". The plateau name is from 1895, and it's not used anymore. It's like claiming the lands is yours. We can mention historical names in the history section, and write the most common name on the front page. Ottomans also have also different names for that region but they are not used anymore. Thanks, Wallking1 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"It isn't used anymore"?. There's a whole article about it, and I've told you that before, so quit sealioning. The so-called "Van lake district" is in the Armenian Highlands, and it will be unless someone destroys said plateau. - Sumanuil (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please indent your comments. This was almost impossible to read through and tell who was saying what before I fixed it with indents. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think eight reverts is enough. Blocked for a week, and I'll protect the article. Is it just me or is ANI becoming flooded with Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes? Perhaps we need to exercise the arbitration enforcement measures a little more liberally. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• After a comment by Wallking1 further up the page that quoted verbatim another editor's comment in that discussion complete with the same grammatical error, I tilted my head and looked at their edit history. Created 30 May, made a draft that was deleted...and then sat until today at which point they dive straight in to one of the hottest flashpoints on the Wiki. I can't help but hear the sound of waterfowl of some kind. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You're not imagining things, Black Kite. Between the Syria/Kurdish/Turkish disputes and the Armenia/Azerbaijan/Turkish disputes, there is a lot of ethnic rivalry going on right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with The Bushranger, Solavirum looks more than a bit suspicious. And frankly, I'm trying to see why I shouldn't block for belligerent battleground editing anyway. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can this action count toward WP:ARBAA2? Be sure to tag Talk:Lake Van with {{Ds/talk notice|topic=a-a}} if it does fall within ARBAA2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This one's Turkish-Armenian. See Siege of Van and related articles. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by JJdawikieditor

• JJdawikieditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Hzh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The editor JJdawikieditor has been repeatedly adding/changing [205] name of a lion dance on the article Lion dance apparently to publicise a version performed at a particular temple [206], with no source to support the claim it is the popular Taiwanese lion. Looks like false info and spam to me. There is no sign that the editor will stop doing it despite multiple warnings. I should also note similar problem with absence of sources in his other edits in other articles, including possible BLP issue - e.g. [207]. Hzh (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Both of you roared past WP:3RR like most people treat the speed limit. Don't edit war. Since this happened over 24 hours ago I'm not blocking this time; you're both getting warnings and I've protected the page for one week. Discuss the issue on the article talk page to establish consensus on the content dispute. If edit warring resumes when the protection expires, there will be blocks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Heartily & Tendentious editing

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

---

• Heartily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Heartily (talk · contribs) has been active on a variety of pages related to India with the primary interest being addition of "political leanings" on them. Most of their additions are either poorly sourced, are products of original research, over which they edit war and any attempts at discussion leads them to become evasive or disingenuous. They have been adequately warned with regards to their conduct but that has been unable to bring about any change in their conduct. Diffs of some recent examples are as follows:

• Special:Diff/994610737 First revert of a contested section on Mumbai Mirror.
• Special:Diff/994709039 Second revert. They begin discussion on Talk:Mumbai Mirror#Disruptive Edits: Political Alignment. This discussion continues on the talk page while they continue to edit war on the mainspace. Also note that they seem to claim that they have a consensus for their additions at one point, which is denied by the same people they claim to have a consensus with.
• Special:Diff/994722517 Third revert.
• Special:Diff/994735060 & Special:Diff/994735243 Fourth revert. Partially self-reverted in Special:Diff/994739407 after they were suggested to do so to decrease their chances of getting blocked on the talk page which ultimately ends with them stating something along the lines of "they don't have time for discussion".
• Special:Diff/994940417 Fifth revert with no edit summary and their edit tagged as minor. Also note that an IP address began attempting to restore the same, right after this was reverted and until the page was semi-protected.
• Special:Diff/995646557 Addition of the following text ", political agendas and biases, stand against certain non-Western countries," in a line about criticism of Wikipedia, with no sources, no edit summary and again their edit tagged as minor. Also note their drive by tagging on OpIndia and Republic TV.

There are more similar older instances of this kind of behavior on the pages of Four Year Undergraduate Programme protests and Jawaharlal Nehru University for which they seem to been warned as well. To me, this appears to be either a WP:CIR issue or a WP:NOTHERE issue, probably a mix of both. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Very likely a part of or influenced by [208]. Certainly WP:NOTHEREChunnuBhai (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, and the pro-British dead empire fart campaign run by the BBC is going to land you where? Heartily (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer: WP:NOTTHERE :'D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartily (talk • contribs) 13:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Heartily, is that a confession?ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

ChunnuBhai, I stole the words from your mouth, but why don't you create a userpage, by the way? Or is that run by the BBC too? Heartily (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Heartily, please go ahead and edit my page :) ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Tayi Arajakate & Tendentious editing

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

---

Retaliatory nonsense. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I would like to place a complaint here on all of the above stated disruptions on Tayi Arajakate instead, for his/her own POV pushing (that is trying to claim that about my NPOV edits). *PS: Not to mention, also falsely bringing in some anonymous IP address's edits into my edit history for no reason. Heartily (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC) *Comment Edited by Heartily. Agree User:Tayi Arajakate is biased, politically Left individual surviving happily in a democratic nation, enjoying (taking granted) the freedom of everything. I too have found many occasions where she is biased and gamed against the well set pillars of wikipedia. She is dangerous for wikipedia itself . People like her put wiki in deep trouble just like some user put up incorrect India map on page India Bhutan relation and put wiki on a blanket ban in India region by Indian government. Thanks to @Jimmy Wales: wiki has avoided blanket ban like other internet giants like Tiktok, PUBG, Huawei]] and other 119 internet entities, these users a threat to whole wiki for its existence . I am a little rough in my language but i submit all this in the best interest of wikipedia. I know my account is going to be banned for using straightforward approach and rough talks. Now ball is in your court . Tik Tok Tik Tok . [Special:Contributions/45.124.142.19|45.124.142.19]] (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Thank you, I agree too. Wikipedia's fate will turn into Tiktok's as you are saying if Jimmy Wales doesn't wake up and do something about this rubbish going on here. I know users who have been banned from editing by rabid leftists on Wiki since years. High time the government takes action. Heartily (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC) I don't think they get it, do they? What happened to TikTok and PubG is financially crippling for the company, but they still think banning our accounts is serving them a purpose. I mean, what are we to lose even if our accounts are banned? It's their own business that will drown. Heartily (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)  Administrator note Assuming you are different people, I have no idea what either of you are trying to say, and neither of you has noted anything specific that Tayi Arajakate has done in violation of community policy or guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Cyphoidbomb, the current notice is just in retaliation to the notice above this. no specific complaints , just personal attacks.ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Cyphoidbomb, don't worry, go back to sleep. Heartily (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Tendonitis editing

-EEng

@EEng: mine is usually in my shoulder, but whatever works. DFO

• I was going to block the OP but I see that Cyphoidbomb has done it already for a much shorter duration than I would've blocked for. This should be the last warning before editing privileges are removed completely. —SpacemanSpiff 13:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• @SpacemanSpiff: I extended it to indefinite based on your comments. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and POV pushing at Template:Indian martial arts

• The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 110.137.168.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Template:Indian martial arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I had cleanedup the template removing red links (also unlikely to be created), and unlinked entries and duplicates, also adding new additions and arranged misplaced entries. The Banner reverted it saying Revert vandalism. Red links are allowed. This was not only uncivil but a misleading edit summary. I undid saying rv vandalism. Not allowed, the very purpose of navigation template itself is to navigate through related links. From this point onward The Banner has been blatantly reverting without any explanation, violating WP:REVEXP and WP:FIES, which I pointed each time – [209][210][211][212]. User went to WP:RPP accusing me of disruptive editing to "protect" the page, this gesture shows he has no plans to discuss the matter or using talk page. At RPP I made it clear that per WP:NAV: A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. The Banner's problem is personal choice, hence he has no explanation for his action. Go to talk page instead of blatantly reverting. His reply was a WP:REHASH: red links are still allowed.. As I stated in the summary. Meanwhile, 110.137.168.139 (same RPP IP) reverted it saying "vandalism". Scottywong protected the page with that POV and original research version. This is a misconduct from The Banner and 110.137.168.139. 157.44.180.216 (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You are unhappy that the template is now protected? The fact that you are using multiple IPs (in both IPv4 and IPv6 ranges) still is no excuses for removal of the red links and changing the scope. And you are playing the owner of this template, seeing you edits here rv vandalism. Not allowed, the very purpose of navigation template itself is to navigate through related links. The Banner talk 10:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I will agree that the IP's edits were not "vandalism", and shouldn't have been labeled as such (which is why I protected the page for "disruptive editing", not for "vandalism"). However, there clearly isn't strong support for these edits. In cases where there is not clear support and your edit is reverted, the appropriate next step is to start a discussion (the D in WP:BRD) on the talk page of the article to understand the editor's objection to your edit, to see if you can gain consensus for your edit, or to see if you can find a compromise that works for everyone. Starting an edit war is never an appropriate next step, and this is the disruptive editing that resulted in the page being protected. Rather than trying to hash this out at the drama board, I'd suggest that you take a few deep breaths, and start a civil discussion on the talk page of the article. If you can find other editors who agree with you, then great. If you can't, then just drop it and move on. That's how things work here. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Another music genre changer who ignores sources

Ender Gudiño (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already has multiple warnings for unsourced changes to music genres. Today this edit changed "Gothic rock" to "Alternative rock" without explanation, contrary to the unambiguous existing citation. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: I see Alternative Pop/Rock here in the source, and it actually seems more broad than "Gothic rock". Isn't it usually the hyper-specific genre labels that people get weird about? I'm also a little skeptical that Allmusic.com is a reliable source for genre. It has a "Submit corrections" link, which suggests to me that it is, at least to some degree, user generated. Anyhow, since the edit they made is consistent with the "source", I can't issue a sanction for this. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, Cyphoidbomb. The source as a whole is about a compilation of singles of various styles that The Cure released over 10 years. The genres listed in the sidebar refer to the compilation as a whole. The only part of the source that refers to the subject of the Wikipedia article, the song "Just Like Heaven", calls it "goth rock".

I'm most concerned that this contributor thinks it's fine to change sourced content without respecting the source, as they've done before [213]. Such edits break text–source integrity and defeat the purpose of having references at all. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I wondered if it was a Spanish-language issue, but they have the same thing going on at es.wikipedia (along with a notification about an inappropriate username, although I am unable to decipher why it is questioned).[214]. Ender, please respond here to explain your edits (Ender, favor de responder aquí para explicar estas reviciones). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: You say: "I'm most concerned that this contributor thinks it's fine to change sourced content without respecting the source, as they've done before [1]" well, look, whatever problematic change this editor made in early November is not pertinent here unless they've done the same thing again. That has not been demonstrated. And to SandyGeorgia's response, I'm still not clear what guideline or policy they violated here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to ping me to a discussion I am participating in. Do you regularly so kindly thank editors who try to help investigate whether there might be a language issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"There is no need to ping me to a discussion I am participating in." Pinging is a courtesy. If you don't want that courtesy to be extended to you, you might consider making your preference known in a more obvious way, like in your signature file or something. It's actually rare that I encounter someone who objects to pinging, so I don't consider pinging to be a default irritation. Thus, your "There is no need" angle is highly-specific to your personal preference, and it's not something I'm likely to remember beyond this discussion. But hey, if we're lucky, the discussion will end here and we'll both be satisfied from this point forward! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Reverence

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

---

• Jimmy Reverence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Widespread disruption on many pages. Talk:Kamala Harris and many user pages. Not exactly sure what the criteria is, but consider blocking. Rklahn (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits match up to past accounts that put this puerile nonsense on the above page from December 10–12 and November 24–26. 03:54, Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• The "Jimmy Reverence" account has been blocked, with talk page access revoked after they abused that privilege as well. Consider filing a report at WP:SPI. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup, sock-puppetry is most likely. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

And "Jimmy Relevance", who also has an affinity for 72.1.206.159 (that is now hard-blocked, but they surely have more than one IP at their disposal). Please SPI this, it's long-term than things usually stay on ANI mainpage. DMacks (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• These vandalism only accounts are socks of Evlekis. Talk:Kamala Harris may need longer protection. DMacks, I don't believe that Ontario IP is actually related (Evlekis is based on another continent). Part of his thing is to impersonate other users/vandals/spammers. Sro23 (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Snake0124

• Snake0124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User talk:Snake0124 has been making disruptive edits on Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film). Plot summaries are suppose to be brief but Snake0124 keeps adding unnecessary content that either clutters or does not benefit the plot summary (1, 2, 3). Additionally, Snake0124 keeps restoring the following edits repeatedly despite reverts: back in May (1, 2, 3, 4); back in September (1); this month (1, 2, 3, 4). The characters are never referred to as mercenaries or referenced as US former service members but Snake0124 keeps restoring these unfounded edits. If you examine their talk page, you can see Snake0124 has built a history of disruptive editing and edit warring. Their reply to my warning (1) makes it clear that Snake0124 has not familiarized themselves with Wiki guidelines despite repeated warnings by other editors. Snake0124 has only been blocked once for 48 hours. A longer block must be enforced. Enough is enough. Armegon (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Vandalism - Block User Request

The two users below is reported because they are editing this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Geronimo) in malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. User1: Itssheenabautista User2: Phoenix012087

• Itssheenabautista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This account continuously put wrong information on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Geronimo Please block this user on editing any wikipedia's page because this user is spreading hate and false information in any platforms to discredit the person on the page. JM SG2021 (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Phoenix012087 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)This account continuously put wrong information on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Geronimo Please block this user on editing any wikipedia's page because this user is spreading hate and false information in any platforms to discredit the person on the page. JM SG2021 (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

(Non-administrator comment) @JM SG2021: By policy written at the top of this page and when you were creating this report, you must notify the users in question on their talk page. You may use {{ANI-notice}} to do so. Please provide diffs to support your claims. If this is a content dispute you are probably looking for dispute resolution instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 10:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

IP 174.212.222.125 keeps adding Otto Dietrich as a source to Brigitte Helm

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

---

Otto Dietrich was a Nazi Reichsleiter, the Nazi Party Press Chief, State Secretary in the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda and Obergruppenführer of the SS. A book of him was used at Brigitte Helm, I have deleted that book because - to me -such a book is without any doubt not a WP:RS. The IP keeps re-adding it claiming e.g. "There's nothing about a job, or an ideology, that would make a source unreliable" [215], [216], [217] We are talking about a devoted Nazi, a member of Hitler's personal staff. 2003:D2:B70A:C6D0:7999:CE18:B4D3:985D (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@2003:D2:B70A:C6D0:7999:CE18:B4D3:985D: A) content dispute, and as per this starting of a discussion on the talk page it's on the right track, so there is currently no call to take this here. B) 174.212.222.125 is correct on both counts - the status quo is that the text has been present in the article for a while, its removal is the bold edit, and if that is reverted, you stay with the present text and discuss the removal; and being authored by a Nazi official is not an a priori reason for not using a source - we are citing Mein Kampf nearly a thousand times in this encyclopedia [218]. Please discuss the details of this issue on the talk page, I doubt you will be able to solve it on generalities. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Rusty ShackIeford

• Rusty ShackIeford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've just sent a heads up to Rusty ShackIeford (talk · contribs) after they have been on an editing blitz with a load of MOS:OVERLINK violating links. I'm not blocking them as they have stopped editing after this, but my spider senses tell me this sounds like somebody trying to get to extended confirmed quickly and cause trouble; even if it isn't, there's a bunch of unneccessary links that we need to roll back. Can anyone lend a hand? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted some. The user name is enough to ring bells, for fans of King of the Hill and given the intentional misspelling. GiantSnowman 11:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

As they have carried on without discussion, I have indefinitely blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A user marking significant edits as minor, ignoring attempts to communicate

• Pajfarmor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Cinagroni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Pajfarmor seldom uses edit summaries, but frequently marks significant content changes as minor. Recent examples: [219], [220], [221].

I noticed this and asked them why they were doing it: [222]. They ignored that and continued to mark significant edits as minor. 28 of their most recent 50 edits are marked as minor, and it looks to me like that is misleading in every case.

I noted on their talk page that ignoring questions and continuing to mark major edits as minor looks like deliberate disruption. As they have marked more major edits as minor since then while still ignoring the questions on their talk page, I am raising it here in case anything can be done about it. Cinagroni (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this the iOS bug again like the last example of this was? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Doesn't look like an iOS or mobile editor, just an editor who has almost never posts to talk pages. I did find talk page posts from 2007 and 2010.

@Cinagroni: "Dishonest marking of major edits as minor" is not a WP:CIVIL way to raise a concern with an editor. I don't blame an editor for ignoring such a message. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing remotely uncivil in what I said. Cinagroni (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You accused another editor of dishonesty, which means lying, for marking edits as minor. That's a huge failure of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If someone makes a mistake or does something you disagree with, you shouldn't accuse them of dishonesty right off the bat. That's what AGF is all about. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The edits they mark as minor are not minor. Nobody could possibly believe that they are. It is not a mistake. It is not a matter of opinion. I find it odd that you choose to attack me for bringing this matter to wider attention. Cinagroni (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Because your account has only made 160 edits, it doesn't take long to look through them all. In my opinion, almost every interaction you've had with other editors (in talk page edits and edit summaries) has shown a failure to WP:AGF and to help maintain a positive, collaborative environment per WP:5P4 and WP:CIVIL. I think you should give other editors the benefit of the doubt, and avoid accusing other editors of dishonesty or deliberate deception, berating them for poor grammar, etc. I think civility is a much bigger deal than an editor improperly marking edits as minor. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

When you file a complaint at ANI, your behavior is just as open to scrutiny as the reason you came here. Always has been. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Levivich. You may have found a legitimate issue here, but your manner of approaching the user is all wrong. A section title like "erroneous marking of edits as minor" doesn't assume bad faith as you did. They may indeed be trying to just fly under the radar by not responding to talk page comments, but being agressive and rude surely is not the right way to try and address that. (Neither is trying to remove this entire section when it didn't go the way you wanted). Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being attacked for having highlighted problematic behaviour. If you think that marking major edits as minor is fine, then say so and move on. You want to discuss unrelated issues, start a new section about them. Cinagroni (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way. You filed this complaint - your behavior is very related. Marking major edits as minor is not fine, but a lack of civility with the editor making those not-minor edits is also not fine. It's why WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks are policies, which are significantly more important than Help:Minor edit, an information page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See WP:BOOMERANG. Any participant in a discussion here may find their own actions under scrutiny. Even I for responding to you now. That said, all you had to do, really, was/is show some self-reflection eg "I see that there's a better way I could've approached the editor. I'll try to do better next time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!"

As for the other editor. It seems they may not be familiar with the Wikipedia definition of 'minor', and it may help them to read WP:MINOR. But is this really a big deal? I'm not sure any anti-vandalism patroller actually hides minor edits (that would be an easy way for vandals to evade scrutiny...), and for watchlists many people don't even hide bot edits apparently never mind self-defined 'minor' edits. So I don't really get the point of the "minor edit" functionality in the first place. The only time I've ever seen it discussed is when someone is getting on someone else's case about it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The only time I've ever seen it discussed is when someone is getting on someone else's case about it. +1000 Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree its a "minor" issue but still not ideal. Also agree that calling them "dishonest" is a bit extreme. Anyway: Have left a further note on their talkpage reminding them of WP:MINOR. Doesn't seem to require any other sanction at this point. let's see what happens if this persists over time. -- Euryalus (talk)|

This user is probably promoting terrorism

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

---

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this but I tried to put what User:M23s0525501 said in Google Translate and it appears that he is promoting the Islamic State and its propaganda. For example, he shared a website that is `publishing everything issued by the Islamic State`, which is obviously a terrorist organization. Here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Use_of_social_media_by_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&curid=55178730&diff=995893926&oldid=993336165 --— SkiMaskA⭐ ^(💬Talk) 13:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting and reporting. From an admin perspective this is now all cleaned up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops - blocked before I'd seen this, didn't realise they were glocked already. My bad GirthSummit _(blether) 14:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

[G]locked already — hello violent imagery typo! (Partial to SIG, myself...) El_C 15:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

PowerRangersFan2002

PowerRangersFan2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent addition of unsourced content. Recently blocked 16 October 2020 for 72 hours for similar disruptive behavior. Previously blocked 23 June 2020 for 24 hours.

• List of The Price Is Right pricing games, Revision as of 18:41, 22 December 2020
• List of The Price Is Right pricing games, Revision as of 19:25, 21 December 2020
• Wheel of Fortune (American game show), Revision as of 14:53, 16 December 2020
• Alex Trebek, Revision as of 23:20, 5 December 2020 — Bizarre addition to article "since then, that is no longer happening do Trebek dying on November 8, 2020."

AldezD (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There are clearly issues here. I invite PowerRangersFan2002 to discuss why they should not be blocked for lack of editing and collaboration competence (no sourcing, no apparent communication of any kind). To other admins: don't we have a LTA in the TV show/animation topic area and does this fit their MO? Sandstein 20:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed here

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

---

• Mahusha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Baji Rao I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need an admin intervention here Baji Rao. User:Mahusha edits were already reverted by User:Alivardi here. The user is continuously adding honorifics, removing sourced contents, adding Hindi and Marathi terms, and she is not even explaining her edits. She was warned too here for edit warring as well as by Admin Ohnoitsjamie. She shouldn't be blocked I think, but the page needs to edited by an admin. Thank you. --79.75.43.64 (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Report at WP:3RR/N instead of here, as it is a more applicable noticeboard. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Orh

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

---

• Orh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Veena Oad 23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The Orh article was up for a rewrite. After Chariotrider555 made the changes, user Veena Oad 23 and some IPs are trying to either remove the content [223] or restore an old, mostly unsourced and poorly sourced version [224] [225] [226] despite requests to engage in discussion [227], [228] [229]. I believe the User:Veena Oad 23 and the IPs are from the same range. I believe a block and page protection is necessary - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Semiprotected for one week to encourage the IP editor to discuss. I don't think anything else is needed at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Requesting partial block review

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

I am asking to be removed from being blocked. I made revisions with sources and all I got was undo reverts under the misleading name of vandalism. I am not sure why an administrator thought it appropriate to block. Vandalism means malicious misinformation. The information I intended to add about Sidney Powell was not in any wise malicious or even in the other direction supporting her causes. "Trump's legal team clarified her lawsuit was filed independently of the Trump legal team with Attorney L. Lin Wood representing her under the name of "We the people". Her case focuses on Dominion voting machine's ability to be manipulated and votes adjudicated, referenced by an affidavit from a previous assistant to Hugo Chavez, a previous dictator of Venezuela, who used Smartmatic voting machines, which had license agreements with Dominion." To clarify on the details of a conspiracy theory is not vandalism. The only reverts I made was those that reverted my edits. If this type of prohibitions on sharing information persist, I will talk to several news agencies about defunding Wikipedia and will never support it again. If any new information is immediately reverted by a select few hogging the page, how is that open editing? I would much rather see it be flagged for better sources, but it seems some are lazy and want to hit the revert button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartlazy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Smartlazy, Threatening to talk to news agencies about defunding Wikipedia is not the right approach, if your goal is to improve Wikipedia. That said, using the term "rvt fringe garbage" when referring to an edit consistent with and supported by a source is unreasonably confrontational when applied to a brand-new editor. Let's all take a deep breath and sort out what's happening. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Smartlazy, You are very new and unfamiliar with some of our protocols. While it is understandable that if you add some material and see it reverted, you might think that if you are sure that it belongs in the article you should keep reverting back into the article as long as it takes. Unfortunately, while that tactic might prevail in the real world, in Wikipedia that's viewed as edit warring, and we insist that a different approach is followed. At a minimum, open up the discussion on the article talk page explaining why you think the material belongs in the article, and be prepared to respond to those who view the sources as suspect. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, if you are not an open sourced platform, just go ahead and say it. To allow a self-willed administrator to block at random request is bad management. Maybe this is why people are slowly dropping out of funding "open source" sites like Wikipedia. Do not block people who willing responded and defended against blatant reverts. I am not a brand new editor. I made an edit before on a science article a few years ago. Sources that are plainly obvious webpages that anyone can view should be allowed to be viewed for the reader to make an unbiased decision of ALL of the available information at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartlazy (talk • contribs) 01:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I will talk to several news agencies about defunding Wikipedia That's not a legal threat but I'm pretty sure it's a "not the kind of threat that lets you keep editing Wikipedia" threat. ~~And your further reply makes it very clear that you are not listening and don't understand Wikipedia's policies.~~ - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bushranger,

>you are not listening

Listening to what? the only information placed on the talk page accuses the editor of vandalism which is not remotely what happened. It is completely understandable to me that they are tuning out what's obviously mistaken claims. Did anyone explain on the editor's talk page that repeated insertion of the material is considered edit warring and a problem. I suppose it might be in some of the links but it's a bit unrealistic to expect a brand-new editor to click on every blue link and fully absorbed it before moving on. We've been horrible to this editor, oh this editor and apology and a restart. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to put this [230] in make me think that deepfriedokra was being kind in blocking you only from that article. "Purported President-elect" is against all consensus and reliable sourcing. Further disruption will be met with a full block, possibly indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion, I didn't place the block. The editor was wrong to keep trying to add the material, but they are brand-new editor and don't understand our processes. While there is a little bit of information in the edit summaries, brand-new editors are always aware that they should look at edit summaries. The talk page has very little information about what was going on, and in my opinion the very limited information on the talk page is misleading. This isn't remotely vandalism. It is quite understandable that an editor seeing a claim that they are vandalizing would presume that whoever is saying this is not well-informed. And they would be right. I don't support the threat, but that threat comes in response to incompetent reactions by Wikipedia editors, some of whom should know better. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've corrected the blocking admin. It's not vandalism, but it's edit-warring to push a fringe POV that's been repudiated by reliable sources. Blocking from that article for a short time is a reasonable response to stop the cycle of disruption. We're not obligated to humor fringe POVs. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: first, they made eventually 7 reverts of WP:FRINGE material, second, the WP:FRINGE conspiracy items they were trying to insert they "sourced" from Washington Examiner and "Geller Report". By the time I finished the initial AIV report they had already violated 3RR and ignored warnings, and they still haven't actually discussed their edits on the talk page despite both myself and @Soibangla: posting and pinging them. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, I know nothing about the Geller report. what's wrong with sourcing to the Washington Examiner?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "...there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims." WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories are definitely in that category. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the block was premature. Accusing a brand-new editor of vandalizing when they are adding well written texts supported by a source is unreasonably confrontational. It isn't remotely vandalism. It might be that the sourcing doesn't meet our standards, calling a disagreement about sources vandalism is over the top. We typically block an editor after four warnings. while there are legitimate reasons for doing it sooner than four, those legitimate reasons include actual vandalism not disagreement about sources. The editor wasn't properly warned. Yes there is a warning on the talk page but it talks about vandalism which isn't the case. the editor was blocked for "reinserting challenged content". I see nothing on their talk page explaining what that means.

Wikipedia has a reputation of being vicious to brand-new editors. I thought we had made progress but I am seeing it in practice. I think the editor's response is over the top but given how badly they have been treated I understand their reaction.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No one accused you I never accused anyone of vandalizing. @Smartlazy: Please review the links in the block notice I left you. Please read WP:BRD. It is up to you to find WP:consensus for your edits. There are a number of options linked in the message I left you. It is not up to those who challenge your edit to disprove your assertions. I will leave it others to characterize your threat in response to not having your way. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, > No one accused you of vandalizing.

Of course the editor was accused of vandalizing. Read the damn talk page:

> If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sidney Powell...

> You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia,

There's hardly anything on the talk page other than accusations of vandalism--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to unblock if that is your wish. The block was for edit warring to stop disruption, and to encouarge discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Wait, you say the block was for edit warring? How many warnings did the editor received for edit war on the talk page? I count zero. Did I miss one or two or three? I found one, minutes before the block was issued.S Philbrick(Talk) 02:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, The block was partially intended to encourage discussion? Is a veteran editor you know that we encourage editors to discuss rather than edit war but how does a brand-new editor know they should open a discussion? I don't see that mentioned on the talk page. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor has said they are not brand-new. And they came straight to the dramaboard and launched a barrage of vitriol beyond reason for merely being frustrated - and then in response to you doubled down on it. I agree we can be far too quick to bite the newbies but AGF only goes so far. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Smartlazy, I agree with Sphilbrick that your edits were not vandalism and that it was wrong that you were accused of it. That being said, you are only blocked from editing one article for 36 hours. In that time, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the prohibition on edit warring, the requirement that only truly reliable sources be used as references, and the consensus method of decision making. Not one experienced Wikipedia editor cares in the slightest whether or not you donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation but it is not collaborative and not wise to make threats about organizing a press campaign to defund Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please see my corrected comments, which you responded to the uncorrected version. The user had the (wrong) vandal warnings and an EWN notice. IMO, I needed to place the partial block to stop the disruption. Please feel free to unblock if that is your wish. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:Please see my revised comments above. You replied to the uncorrected version. Apparently lost in the many edit conflicts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

As usual, Cullen is a voice of reason. Nice to see. @Smartlazy, I'm sorry your introduction to Wikipedia has been so "interesting". I urge you not to take too seriously any of the brickbats being thrown at you, and take Cullen's advice. I'll be happy to chat with you if you need assistance understanding some of our jargon. To others, it's Christmas Eve Eve, and this is not good for my blood pressure, so I'm bowing out for now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Probably it would have been better if you had explained the reliable sources issue to OP rather than laying on vandal warnings or reporting at WP:AIV. (or edit warring over a content dispute). Also, the edit warring warning would have been more appropriate than reporting at notice boards first. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I agree. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Endorse block The warnings were not done well, but edit-warring to call Biden the "purported" president-elect is not acceptable, even from a new editor. A 36-hour block from one article is a very minor sanction; the OP should simply do something else (maybe edit other articles) in that time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Endorse block for edit-warring, which was certainly occurring regardless of the merits or otherwise of the content. The blocked editor is perfectly free to lodge an unblock request outlining how they've read WP:EW and understand not to do it again. They're also perfectly free to talk to any news agency they like and defund anything they want - neither of these somewhat dubious threats have any bearing on this block or the outcome of a block appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Endorse block per power~enwiki and Euryalus. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenebrae

• Talk:Amanda Kloots (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tenebrae's activities toward editors that disagree with them in an RFC Talk:Amanda Kloots#RFC about including sons name and their usertalkpage have been downright WP:BATTLEGROUND. They apparently filed a retaliatory SPI against two of the editors[231] and continue to make comments and condescending strawman conjectures about editors who assert BLPNAME [232][233][234][235][236] after being asked not to.[237][238] The most bizarre strawman was the unsolicited mention of Trump and his supporters [239][240] as some sort of perjorative attack. I am actually a Justin Trudeau supporter. :) Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

e/c:

Retaliatory action by an editor who posted deliberately provocative and inciting claims such as that NBC News' Today show could not be used as reliable source since it — and the venerable theater magazine Playbill — were "pop-culture sources" and could not be cited for a WP:BLP. This editor also claimed an opinion essay was a policy/guideline that had to be followed. This editor has been uncivil and baiting, such as an edit summary that read simply, "Yawn." And now this — a last resort after none of his arguments have withstood logic and such reality as, literally, a textbook definition that he refuted because ... well, just because, apparently. I could tell you more.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Your continuing to mischaracterise my BLPNAME argument[241] just show that you just refuse to WP:LISTEN despite another editor making a very similar argument earlier.[242] You've been at this for at least 6 years and were even blocked over edit warring over the insertion of children's names into celebrity articles without gaining consensus[243][244] showing that you still don't understand WP:ONUS to this day.[245] Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup. IP named in Tenebrae's evidence-free SPI here (under a different IP - my ISP changes it frequently for no good reason). I recommend everyone to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KyleJoan, and see just how silly it got. And note that this was the second SPI my IP had been raised in as supposedly connected to KyleJoan - Tenebrae knew even before he/she started it that there was no prospect of it going anywhere. It appears that simply disagreeing with Tenebrae is seen as sufficient grounds to make socking accusations. And that anything whatever done after that is further 'proof'. Editing occasionally as an IP these days (used to have an account - lost my password) I have come to expect the occasional accusation of socking if I show any signs of understanding Wikipedia policy etc, but this was beyond the pale. Anyone who thinks that e.g. starting editing within two years of another editor (a decade ago), and disagreeing with the person you are supposed to be a sock of [246] is valid 'evidence' for a SPI should probably be topic-banned from filing SPIs entirely. A total waste of time better put to use elsewhere. I was inclined to leave the whole thing behind me, but having seen how Tenebrae has continued their badgering on the Kloots talk page, I can fully understand why Morbidthoughts has called for something to be done. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This anon IP is telling blatant untruths. Plenty of evidence was presented in the SPI. The entire reason it's called "evidence" and not "proof" is that we don't know but have reasonable suspicion of sock activity. And as this anon IP itself notes, another editor had the same suspicion of this IP being a sock. (And to address this IP's italicized remark, in my 15 years here I have personally seen socks pretend to argue with themselves on talk pages as a way to try to throw off investigators.)

I will also say this anon IP and its predecessor have a record anyone can see of being hostile and aggressive, and is taking this opportunity to air unrelated grievances as payback for the SPI. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that the editor responsible for the previous SPI involving my (then) IP has been blocked - for socking. As for hostility and aggression, see Talk:Amanda Kloots, and see for yourself where the aggression was coming from. And as for 'unrelated grievances', I haven't a clue what Tenebrae is referring too. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've presented my views about Tenebrae's conduct in an ANI report not too long ago, which you can read in full here. It should also be noted that in said report, an administrator asked both Tenebrae and me to stop making contentious edits at Amanda Kloots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'd call this edit contentious. KyleJoan^talk 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan filed false and malicious 3RR and SPI accusations against me that admins summarily threw out within hours: [247] and [248]. This is all tit-for-tat abuse of the reporting system.

And ohmigod, I've just looked at what KyleJoan calls a "contentious" edit ... and it's this absolutely straightforward and factual actor's credit: "...and was billed as Amanda-Kloots Larsen for the Broadway productions Follies (2011-2012) and Bullets Over Broadway (2014)." KyleJoan's claim is as bad-faith as anyone can ever get.

For perspective on User:Morbidthoughts, read his or her extended rant on my talk page falsely insisting The Broadway League — the producers organization that administers the Tony Awards and in that capacity maintains the official credits for all Broadway shows in its database — is not RS for Broadway credits. That is the kind of bizarre and deliberately argumentative mindset at work here.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

So, it's all "tit-for-tat abuse of the reporting system" unless Tenebrae does it? Fascinating... 109.158.199.97 (talk)

User Celco85

• Celco85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

@Bumbubookworm, Deepfriedokra, and MarnetteD: This editor has been causing many problems with no understanding of how references should be included in articles as well as using references incorrecvtly. These problems have been documented in Talk:John Hewson Today he/she has caused problems in at least four articles. He/she was reported as a vandal on 22 December but the report went stale [249]Fleet Lists (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Celco85 stale 22nd December 2020

• I left Celco85 two messages, but I guess I did not do a good job. @Fleet Lists: Please notify user of this discussion if you have not done so. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)