Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 37.155.240.129 (talk) at 22:27, 26 December 2020 (→User 212.156.71.30 / 37.155.240.129). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    Topic ban violated?

    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: [1]. And User:JzG warned him about it: User_talk:Tillman#Warning --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Obvious truths? Oh here we go... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    .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)[reply]
    Agreed, the idea that BANEX applies here is ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems this is not an isolated incident: back in April there was [2] and the associated discussion here. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed this one: [3] --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More of the same, but a bit older: [4]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions by Bgkc4444

    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." ([5]) 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.

    • [6] "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
    • [7] "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)
    • [8] "we shouldn't not be making articles encyclopedic because we personally don't want readers to know the full story."
    • [9] "It's funny looking at what you're trying to force into the article."
    • [10] "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."
    • [11] "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)
    • [12] "I'm not the one reverting to force my contradictory opinions onto the page."
    • [13] "Consensus is not three editors agreeing with each others and explicitly agreeing to ignore opposing views."
    • [14] "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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 ([15], as warned by Escape Orbit, and elsewhere: [16], [17], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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 ([18]), 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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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" [19]. 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)[reply]
    It should be noted that when having a disagreement with Bgkc4444 over the "Black is King" article, as seen here [20], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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
    • 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))[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Levivich, added your suggestion above. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So how long is this block gonna be this time? isento (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Isento, I'm glad you're beginning to take this route. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    [21] isento (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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" [22], "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." [23], "you're extremely biased" [24], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 ([25]). 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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:

    • [26] here he appears to have arbitrarily picked one of the two languages with the name, and apparently the incorrect one
    • [27] 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
    • [28] 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)
    • [29] [30] 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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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?[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Links to dab pages aren't a big deal: if a reader follows one, they'll just then have to select the right article from the list on the dab page. It's just a minor inconvenience for them. But if an editor points that link to the wrong article, that's a problem: for a reader following that link there's no way to then get to the right article, they will likely not even know they're at the wrong article, and the meaning of the text where the link is would have been changed. That's why an error rate like, say, 10% would never be acceptable: fixing 9 inconsequential errors doesn't outweigh the introduction of one serious mistake. That's why if an editor can't disambiguate with care, they shouldn't disambiguate at all. And we're not talking about the occasional error in a difficult case – everybody does that, we're talking about glaring errors, like the one that introduced Japanese ghosts into an Iranian historical account. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that improperly "fixing" a dab page can be a serious problem for the reasons Uanfala spells out. But are we talking about an error rate of 10%? Or 1%? Or 0.1%? I notice that we have five examples from a recent 24hr period, but this month Onel has made thousands of mainspace edits that appear (at a quick glance) to be mostly dab-related. Is that a sufficient or representative sample? If the error rate is 1% or less, it seems we should be OK with an "I'll be more careful". In my view, the problem is too much editing too fast, but that can be easily fixed by slowing down a bit. I don't see that Onel has any malice or competency problems here, just some mistakes. Levivich harass/hound 16:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I haven't done any formal counts, but it didn't take me a lot of searching to find examples – I didn't have to check more than about twenty edits to find the five bad ones above (though of course, my sampling wasn't random). Yeah, I agree an acceptable error rate for fixing dab links should be no more than 1%. Going too fast is an aspect of the problem, yes, but I think it's more of a side effect, than a root cause. Hasty editing wouldn't occur if there were better appreciation of some basic principles: that fixing links can't always rely on hunches, that examining the context may often be necessary, that what first comes to your mind may not always work, that the intended meaning may not even be listed on the dab page, etc. It's from this vantage point that in the ANI thread from two years ago I proposed some sort of mentorship. But for that to work, there would need to be willingness to take feedback onboard, and if that had been present in the last two years, we wouldn't be here now. – Uanfala (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor doesn't seem to be getting the message

    IP BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) The ip was blocked after the 5th warning and reporting to WP:AIV. Matthew hk (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    Thanks, they're listed here. [31], [32], and [33] just this week. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sent level 4 warning. May be AIV again would help. Matthew hk (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Thanks for posting the notification, @Shirt58:. I forgot. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is ongoing. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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 [34] 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. — MarkH21talk 13:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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 [35]) Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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. — MarkH21talk 14:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Do people want my views on this and if so which part? ~ El D. (talk to me) 16:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @El komodos drago: Sure, on any part you'd like to give your views on. Levivich harass/hound 17:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Newer aspersions

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

    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)[reply]

    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 [[36]] [[37]] and just kept going [[38]] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    I think he said users in plural to include me and while you haven't given me a warning, you have given me the sanctions alert, possibly while thinking it was a warning, as you included "with all respect" in the summary. And as I noticed you gave the same alert to Solavirum at same time (both of us had already been informed of sanctions before), I had to inform you that the sanctions alert isn't a warning. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing up case against another editor to ANI should be with proofs. I'm fully aware what sanctions alert is. How possibly could you know what I think? ...possibly while thinking it was a warning, as you included "with all respect"Addictedtohistory (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by JJdawikieditor

    The editor JJdawikieditor has been repeatedly adding/changing [39] name of a lion dance on the article Lion dance apparently to publicise a version performed at a particular temple [40], 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. [41]. Hzh (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    PowerRangersFan2002

    BLOCKED INDEF
    For lack of sourcing and communication. Sandstein 20:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    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.

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

    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)[reply]
    List of The Price Is Right pricing games, Revision as of 23:28, 24 December 2020—Additional unsourced nonsense since ANI opened. AldezD (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting partial block review

    BLOCK APPEAL DENIED
    And block expired. Sandstein 20:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Repeated attempts to put this [42] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra, I agree. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Endorse block per power~enwiki and Euryalus. Levivich harass/hound 03:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block per Euryalus, except that their "defunding" threats, while not legal threats, have the same potential chilling effect, and should be taken into account when evaluating their behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Block expired

    As the block has already expired, suggest this can be closed. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tenebrae

    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[43] and continue to make comments and condescending strawman conjectures about editors who assert BLPNAME [44][45][46][47][48] after being asked not to.[49][50] The most bizarre strawman was the unsolicited mention of Trump and his supporters [51][52] as some sort of perjorative attack. I am actually a Justin Trudeau supporter. :) Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Your continuing to mischaracterise my BLPNAME argument[53] just show that you just refuse to WP:LISTEN despite another editor making a very similar argument earlier.[54] 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[55][56] showing that you still don't understand WP:ONUS to this day.[57] Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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 [58] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. KyleJoantalk 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:KyleJoan filed false and malicious 3RR and SPI accusations against me that admins summarily threw out within hours: [59] and [60]. 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)[reply]
    So, it's all "tit-for-tat abuse of the reporting system" unless Tenebrae does it? Fascinating... 109.158.199.97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The malicious filings by KyleJoan, whom I believe you know, were each thrown out summarily within hours. See links in my post above. Whereas the SPI against you that MorbidThoughts falsely calls "retaliatory" was not; it warranted and received investigation.
    MorbidThoughts' arguments at Talk:Amanda Kloots and on my talk page were so easily refuted that MorbidThought resorted to arguing that NBC News' Today and the venerable theater magazine Playbill were not RS for biographical information, and that The Broadway League was not RS for Broadway credits. I countered those claims, and with no coherent argument in response, MorbidThoughts comes here, apparently because someone countering his or her claims is "battling." This filing is unwarranted and, I believe, a waste of admins' time.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the false and malicious 3RR, Nil Einne wrote that calling it "false" seems a bit of a stretch; regarding the SPI against [109.158.199.97] that MorbidThoughts falsely calls "retaliatory", the closing administrator also called it retaliatory here. KyleJoantalk 14:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenebrae, I only 'know' KyleJoan to the extent that I've disagreed with them on Talk:Amanda Kloots. And the 'evidence' you submitted for the SPI amounted to nothing more than a claim that I must be a sock because I disagreed with you. It should have been self-evident to anyone who has been around Wikipedia as long as you have that it was going to convince nobody. You seem utterly incapable of seeing honest disagreement as anything but evidence for some sort of conspiracy against you. And while clearly you weren't the only one causing problems on that talk page (see e.g. the sock who got banned for filing the earlier SPI), your continued refusal to let the RfC take its course without engaging in endless argumentation, together with your repeated claims that being a journalist makes you an expert with the last say, is the prime reason that the Kloots biography has remained the poorly-written fluff it is. It would probably be better for the reputation of Wikipedia if the whole thing was scrubbed, everyone involved told to go away and do something useful, and new volunteers who understood how to read sources and then create an appropriate encyclopaedic entry per Wikipedia guidelines were to start from scratch. Wikipedia doesn't deserve this nonsense. Kloots doesn't deserve this nonsense. The readers don't deserve this nonsense. Not over a minor 'celebrity' that a year ago nobody had heard of. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RE:"SPI amounted to nothing more than a claim that I must be a sock because I disagreed with you": I've hesitated to use the word, but you are now lying in the face of evidence that anyone can see for themselves here, including a lengthy list of time-stamps, two points below them, and two additional points added later. I invite anyone reading this to see for themselves that this IP is being blatantly untruthful.
    This IP as well, here and on the contested page, continues to make remarkable and yet contradictory claims: Amanda Kloots is a cohost of CBS' major daytime talk show The Talk, and so clearly notable and not "a minor 'celebrity'" below this IP's standards for an encyclopedia. Yet the same IP wants to whitewash the article to not include the pertinent biographical fact of Kloots' child's name, which Kloots and her late husband released to the media and of whom Kloots has written frequently, with coverage by major programs like NBC's Today. Someone with so muddy a grasp on biographical writing should not be lecturing anyone.
    In any case, tomorrow is Christmas. I don't know about anyone else, but I have family. May I suggest we take a respite until after Christmas?--Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "lengthy list of timestamps" proved precisely nothing beyond the fact that I had been editing on the same day as KyleJoan, and your remaining 'points' amount again to nothing beyond further indications that you cannot respond to people disagreeing with you without seeing some sort of ridiculous conspiracy.
    And if you really wanted to 'take a respite', you always had the option of not responding here yourself. But no, here as on the Kloots' talk page, you have to have the last word. Complete with personal attacks you seem not to want replied to. That isn't going to happen. Call me a liar and I'll respond as an when I like.
    I'll wish everyone else here a Merry Christmas and/or other seasonal greetings as appropriate. And restate, as I already have, that ample evidence for Tenebrae's battleground behaviour can be found on the article talk page, and at the rejected SPI. And for that matter, here on WP:ANI. If anyone is looking for an excuse to hide from relatives, or wants to spoil their Christmas, they are welcome to read it all now. Otherwise, it might be better to do so when the festivities are over. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    General advice - comment on content, not each other. I'm not seeing behaviour here that needs admin intervention, so knock off the point scoring and please follow dispute resolution: use appropriate noticeboards like WP:BLP/N, get a WP:3O, start an RfC. Fences&Windows 00:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'd agree in general with your suggestion that dispute resolution rather than 'point scoring' would seem advisable, it is worth noting that as far as I'm concerned, the only reason I got involved at all was because I responded to an RfC. 01:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.199.97 (talk)
    I have gone ahead and notified BLPN about the RFC per the suggestion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times can an editor continue to make snide comments about other editors before it becomes WP:UNCIVIL and meet the WP:NPA threshold for administrator intervention?
    • "An insurance salesperson or plumber or surgeon who doesn't know what The Broadway League is should not be writing about theater."[61]
    • "It's about self-appointed censors trying to prove they know better..."[62]
    • "For someone with no experience or background but instead a "righting great wrongs crusader mentality..."[63]
    • "You hubristically think you know better"[64]
    • "...read his or her extended rant on my talk page"[65]
    • "Someone with so muddy a grasp on biographical writing should not be lecturing anyone."[66]
    How are these ad hominem comments even acceptable in discussion space? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User Celco85

    @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 [67]Fleet Lists (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Celco85 stale 22nd December 2020[reply]

    Hello some of the edits I made did have good intentions Locco is a legend among those that live in Bayside However perhaps I see that some stuff even if it id true and have some sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celco85 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52

    This user never learned his lesson on WP:DE and continues to ignoring any warnings.

    Before he got blocked the first time, @The Grand Delusion gave me warnings on my talk page for no reason at all.

    Contributions after his first block:

    Those are just examples, looks like he is doing WP:NOTHERE. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "@The Grand Delusion gave me warnings on my talk page for no reason at all."
    Um, you were edit warring with the user you're reporting here. That's why I gave you warnings. Also, I see nothing wrong with the second edit you listed - users have the right to remove messages from their talk page, per WP:BLANKING. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 14:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BaldiBasicsFan: I have not looked at the edits, but 99% of the time, blaming both parties in an edit war is about right. Even if you're right about your version being better, it doesn't mean edit warring is the solution. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: I do see that some dumb moderators will just warn a person for an edit warning, even though a troll continues to revert his edit that violates a Wikipedia rule. The troll should at least talk about his topic on the talk page of the article. If the reverting continues, the good user would get reported, it will depend if the good user gets blocked or not. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really a great strategy to come to an administrators' noticeboard with a report, looking for action by an administrator, and complain about "dumb moderators". Rather counter-productive, I would think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: I'm sorry if this looks off-topic. I promise to just keep talking about the supposed main subject TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52. Let's all avoid taking about the edit war for now. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It takes two to edit war. Unless the subject is BLP violations, which are exempt from the three-revert rule, the first rule of edit-warring is don't, even if the other editor is inserting erronious, uncited, or synthesis content. Because if you do you are also violating policy. Also as mentioned above you may wish to consider your phrasing because your conduct is just as open to scrutiny as the editor you reported - you don't get to say "let's not talk about this other thing involving me and that editor". - The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see attempts to resolve the disputes in any of the talk pages of the articles. Did I miss one? Perhaps both parties should be blocked for edit warring. I don't see much admin action on this one other than send out warnings to both BaldiBasicsFan and TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52. BTW @BaldiBasicsFan: Once you file a report at ANI, you're supposed to inform the involved individuals about it. Jerm (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to change the subject originally. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just informed TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 of this case since you didn't do it BaldiBasicsFan. Jerm (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for leading him to know, although he might ignore you and remove your message. He doesn't like messages from what I know. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They're allowed to do that. Not responding here would be bad optics for them, but it's perfectly cromulent for them to remove anything (other than declined unblock requests for an active block) from their user talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did move all of my message wall junk to my sandbox. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aggressive IP

    This user user:203.129.53.19 is posting aggressive comments that don't really make sense, attacking other editors. General disruptive editing.

    Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't incomprehensible. They were complaining about 2804:7f2:68a:c6a:b90a:ad3c:1f6f:349a using the talk page to post an old version of the article that treated Cultural Marxism as something other than a conspiracy theory. They weren't nice about conspiracy theorists, but you could have talked to them. Instead you've twice removed their comments and come straight here. They've only posted about this one issue and made a couple of edits to drafts - how is that "general disruptive editing"? This reaction is trigger happy. Fences&Windows 23:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trigger happy at all, referring to another editor as "some foolish person", accusing them of being dishonest, telling them to "grow up" telling me "Your personal failure to comprehend English Language" is hardly civil, in fact it's really quite aggressive and wantonly so. I think civility matters, and I may be stupid, but I can't really understand what they are on about or why it requires nasty responses to address the issue. I don't see how any of it contributes to improving the article in anyway, but if you think there's nothing to see here then close the report. Bacondrum (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this "Paleo-idiot Paul Gottfried's nutty commentaries" is about a living person, I've received blocks for less (just to be clear, I'm not asking for this user to be blocked). As per WP:LIBEL. I haven't spoken to them directly because they are being aggressive, I thought it better to let an admin talk to them rather than entering a discourse that could easily end up escalating the hostility, this is me following advice I've received from other admins in the past. Bacondrum (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have used WP:GF and issued a warning to me. As for your complaints about BLP, I'll point out that I'm not pushing for any articles in namespace to refer to Gottfried that way, but if you believe in a nutty conspiracy - you're a nutty conspiracy theorist, no? I personally don't think pointing at a WP:FRINGE belief someone explicitly holds violates BLP, besides it's a talk page and the point of my argument was to frame various readings of "Cultural Marxism" as flawed. Anyways, as you've been warned now, I'll address your concerns and strike through the problematic material for you. Next time don't try to WP:OWN the talk page quite so hard. 203.129.53.19 (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More personal attacks? And yes calling the subject "Paleo-idiot Paul Gottfried's nutty commentaries" is a WP:LIBEL violation. Bacondrum (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Denial of Turkophobia

    User: Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Page: Anti-Turkism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This user has been doing disruptive and racistic editing since a while. First removing the lead that Anti-Turkism is a hatred against the Turkish people. Then deleting some stuff claiming that hating Turkish people is not Anti-Turkism at all. Here removing discrimination against Bulgarian Turks (by the communist regime) and Iraqi Turkmens (by Baath regime), or such as incidents during Cypriot intercommunal violence or Discrimination of Western Thrace Turks. Here, adding pan-Turkism, which is totally unrelated. He also thinks Anti-Turkism (aka Turkophobia) is being Anti-Turkism as an ideology of "Turkism" or "Pan-Turkism", so being against Turkic nationalism, which is clearly not. He also claims Anti-Turkism is "anti-Turkic racism" Which is a dangerous statement. Can anyone say this for Antisemitism? Tried to tell him several times.

    See relevant talks:

    Talk:Anti-Turkism#What is Anti-Turkism?:

    • but being against Turkey and their policies is not Anti-Turkism, as Anti-Turkism covers Turkic people in general.

    So Turkish people are not Turkic people? His first faulty statement.

    • This will be my last answer before I report the article

    Instead of improving it, threatening to delete the article.

    • Anti Turkism is portrayed as being hostile, racist or having an intolerance against Turkic people

    First changing the lead, which stayed for years, after claiming it is what he says.

    • Turkism is sure related to Anti-Turkism, and I used the same source as is used at Pan-Turkism. Turkism was used first as Pan Turkism as stated in the article. If you want an article about Anti-Turkish sentiment, then create one.

    So antisemitism exist because Israel invented something like "Semitism"? Plus Turkophobia and anti-Turkism, both are same terms.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Turkism in Armenia

    • Still *Delete, still a propaganda page. Turkey and Azerbaijan are not all Turkic countries

    Borderline lies. Turkey and Azerbaijan are member states (and founders) of the Turkic Council. Both countries are described as a Turkic country.

    To explain what anti Turkism is, you can easily find some texts on Google books, for example: Like anti-Semitism, anti-Turkism is one of Germany's oldest institutionalised hatreds. These are dangerous statements, pure denial of existence of any Turkophobia. Beshogur (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Answer of Paradise Chronicle

    Thanks for starting this discussion, I was trying to start one, too as you mentioned further up. I have stated that
    of course Turkey and Azerbaijan count as Turkic countries on the 23rd December and I have also
    answered so to Beshogur to his question if I
    still claim that Turks are not Turkic people on the 25 December.
    The main issue is about wether Anti Turkism refers to Turkic peoples (Kazakh, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz etc.) as presented in the leads of several articles concerning the topic (Anti) Turkism or (mainly) to Turkish people:

    The lead of Anti-Turkism

    is hostility, intolerance, or racism against Turkish or Turkic people, Turkish culture, Turkic countries, or Turkey itself

    The lead of Anti-Turkism in Armenia

    hostility, intolerance, or racism against Turkic people, Turkish culture and Turkic countries

    The lead of Pan-Turkism

    since Turkism applies only to Turkic peoples


    then in Beshogurs words

    The term Anti Turkism is pure based on Turkish people not Turkic peoples, but lesser extent.
    It is stated right underneath Turkic peoples that it should not be confused with Turkish people

    (Pan-)Turkism is an ideology heavily influenced by people like Reha Oguz Türkkan who competed with the NAZIS about who, (either Turkey or Germany) the first country based on race is. Page 89, the scholar is Jacob Landau, a prominent scholar on the topic and often cited I other books as well.

    I'd support the move of to Article Anti-Turkism to Anti-Turkish sentiment, which is anyway a redirect to the page Anti Turkism. Then the Anti-Turkism article should be adapted asap, or maybe also first moved into draftspace.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Further discussion

    @Paradise Chronicle: you are still saying the same nonsense. Changing the lead and claiming Turkish people are not Turkic. Also Anti-Turkism is a commonname, why would we change? The articles is been like 14 years with the same lead and you are changing it. And again, what does Pan-Turkism or Reha Oğuz Türkkan to do with Anti-Turkism. Does this justify your removal of racism against Turks from that article? Is English so hard? Not Anti Turkism (anti ideology) Anti Turk-ism (being anti Turk). Beshogur (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To be against Turkey is being against Turkey or Turkeys policies. Being against Turkeys/Erdogans (expansionist, authoritarian) policies or the Armenian Genocide, does not equate of being against the Uzbeks, Kazakhs or Kyrgyz. I have also not claimed that Turks are not Turkic, but that some sections were not directed at Turkic people, but Turkish policies.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't this a content dispute, about whether the article Anti-Turkism should cover anti-Turkey, anti-Turkish, or anti-Turkic sentiment, or some combination? Levivich harass/hound 04:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Levivich, this is a content dispute and Beshogur and Paradise Chronicle are hereby informed that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Both should also be aware that aggressively nationalistic editing is a common problem, and that many such editors have been blocked. So drop the confrontation and work toward consensus on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of indefinite topic ban by User:Eruditescholar

    VIOLATION
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Back in 2017, User:Eruditescholar was issued a permanent topic ban after repeatedly adding uncited and unverifiable ethnicity categories to articles. Eruditescholar was blocked for it in 2017 and again in 2018. The user is back at it, see here and here as well as dozens of other recent edits.--User:Namiba 00:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked this editor for two weeks for multiple clearcut violations of their topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive user seemingly not understanding

    Title of this section basically explains most of it. I've also come here twice before regarding this user, see previous discussions here and here.

    The user in question has been warned a multitude of times, and at this point, are seemingly WP:NOTGETTINGIT and is possible a WP:CIR scenario. They've been warned countless times about how to upload images properly, and are never changing their ways, resulting in most of the warnings on their talk page. They also continue to add unsourced content across different articles, including most recently, Weinerville. When reverted, they don't seem to understand the process of using a talk page or adding a reliable source, resulting in their recent edit warring in places such as that article and Template:Nicktoon creators.

    Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Ludicrous should also be looked at in regards to their images contributions, as they don't seem to understand how copyright things work here, and just claim they are not being disruptive (when in fact, they are and have for some time now) and that the reverts against them/deletion of their uploaded images are 'ludicrous' and that the image(s), "has to come". Many of their edit summaries don't make any sense whatsoever, see more about that in the previous ANI threads I have linked above.

    I'm honestly not sure what should be done at this point, because I highly doubt they will all of a sudden start understanding what any of this means. Some sort of sanctions/stern warning and/or block seems to be necessary at this point. If not, then I'm sure this edit behavior of theirs is just going to keep going on. Magitroopa (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Band1301 (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)But this is serious on the things being true I meant to edit on![reply]

    Indeffed to give them a chance to discuss on their talk a plan for developing some competence. —valereee (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: Thank you, but seems like they still don't understand anything given the massive amount of unblock requests they've added to their talk page. Now 174.141.204.77 might need to be blocked as well. I previously mentioned that the IP is very seemingly them, and now that IP has resumed following Band1301's block, which would now make this block evasion. Magitroopa (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They have consistent formatting problems; in particular, their episode lists are not properly formatted; see the aforementioned Weinerville (Special:Permalink/996369314 current version) for an example. They should be using the standardized {{Episode list}} and {{Episode table}} templates. Someone needs to clean up after them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behaviour by User: DePiep

    I regret being here again.

    Members of WP:ELEM have recently been editing the periodic table article, as an exercise in continuous cooperative editing.[71]

    I politely raised some objection to some of these edits and notified my intention to revert some of them.[72]

    Some discussion ensued over the following days, including some items to consider in going forward.[73] The only person to comment on these items was User:Double sharp.[74]

    Subsequently User:Double sharp withdrew from the discussion. In doing so he said, "…you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish."[75]

    I today started editing the periodic table article. My edits included reverting one of Double sharp’s edits,[76] as I had previously flagged. This one reversion restored content that had been deleted by Double sharp.

    Subsequently, all of my edits were reverted by User: DePiep, on the basis that I had not established consensus.[77] In so doing, DePiep reverted my revert, in breach of BRD.

    Discussion at my talk page ensued.

    In summary, DePiep responded with, among other things, "Yes in a 16k revert some comma might be reverted unintentionally"; TLDR [78]; I do not have consensus [79]; I should ask Double sharp beforehand [80]; and I am editing without discussion [81].

    I have politely reached the end of my tether with this disruptive behaviour by DePeip, which has been raised in this forum on multiple previous occasions.

    Hence I am here, requesting DePiep be disavowed of this behaviour, in a suitable manner, so that I may complete my current round of edits, consistent with previous discussions.

    Thank you, — Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I saw this thread after I had posted to Sandbh to raise my concerns with him. It is my impression that Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem.
    • Sandbh's announcement of his intention to revert drew objections / requests not to revert from Double sharp, DePiep, and YBG. R8R suggested that Sandbh and Double sharp step back, an idea which Double sharp was willing to try but to which Sandbh objected. I posted some thoughts and ideas, also encouraging Sandbh not to revert, and the discussion continued. I do not think the suggestion that only Double sharp was commenting is accurate.
    • I also think it is worth considering how much input one can expect around Christmas Day.
    • I think that the discussions at WT:ELEM (which are difficult to follow being in multiple places and with very large reorganisations having been made by Sandbh and discussed at his user talk page) show that there are issues where all contributors except Sandbh have a generally consistent view. That being the case, DePiep's request for consensus is not unreasonable. A discussion about OR on the project talk page had very consistent views from all editors except Sandbh, who chose not to comment. In this talk page section, Sandbh would also not accept that a statistical analysis he carried out was an example of OR, despite the wording here that Summarizations based on statistical methods, however, are original research by synthesis, as they involve the reinterpretation of data, and decisions about which statistical methods and significance levels are appropriate.
    • I do not see any sanction against DePiep as warranted at this time, even if he is not a model of politeness at all times.
    • I do not think trying to argue which edits count as "B" and which as "R" is that important. It depends on time frames and perspectives... and, in any case, the bigger problem is that "D" either doesn't happen or becomes dysfunctional or swamped. The WT:ELEM history shows that 2020 has seen its size more than double from its previous high, to now over 600,000 bytes. It has seen 8,203 edits in 2020, the previous high point being 2,050 edits in 2013.
    • I see Sandbh's discussion style as much more of a problem. The use of old sources that are not appropriate except for history, primary literature, and OR are not helping. EdChem (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quickly looked at the link in "Subsequently User:Double sharp withdrew from the discussion" above. I might be missing something but reading the comment in context appears to confirm EdChem's above "Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem", at least as far as Double sharp is concerned. Further, Double sharp's comment appears to an ignorant onlooker such as myself as an authoritative response to Sandbh. Is there any chance of getting opinions from people who understand the topic (hello Beetstra)? Given that the current situation is untenable, what remedy is recommended? Perhaps Sandbh should be topic banned for a month to at least give people a break during this holiday period? If anyone wants to comment on my statement, the place to do that is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Elements, 12-28 November 2020, and WT:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55#ArbCom Case Request (Nov 2020), 15 November 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here we go again! See here for slow moving edit war. I see nothing in Depeip's editing in terms of admins needing to do something. Sandbh I think has a case to answer EdChem's comments in an appropriate way. Other than that I see nothing but a close the thread down ASAP before walls appear demand! Sandbh you really need to pick more wisely before coming here. Games of the world (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not this again... I have been following the developments at WT:ELEM (project member), but only been more active the past two weeks (RL matters). I do not believe any sanctions against DePiep are warranted, for it is very true that many threads are unreadable and clearly have not led to any recent, substantial, and uncontroversial improvement to articles. I agree with EdChem that WT:ELEM has become unreadable, especially since there is no major progress to show for it. On the other hand, OR and lack of consensus have been persistent problems, and this is exactly why the changes to periodic table were reverted and the project has nothing to show for these unwieldy threads; it would contradict fundamental WP policy to build arguments and consensus around original research and the opinions of editors rather than established, undisputed facts. It seems that nobody at WT:ELEM (to name a few, myself, YBG, DePiep, and Double sharp) agrees with Sandbh on some of his proposals or matters related to group 3 and the periodic table; this blowout led to past ANI threads and the ArbCom case that have been judged as inappropriate by uninvolved editors and have not resolved the problem in any case.
    Regarding BRD, the objective should be for DePiep, Sandbh, and any other involved editors to engage in civil discussion so that no edit wars erupt and the article is not the victim of a dispute. In this case, though, this is not the first time that Sandbh has made major changes with which someone at WT:ELEM has disagreed, and indeed Double sharp has taken a step back in order to not engage in heated discussions. I have not taken part myself because I do not want to edit war or repeat myself to no avail.
    Also, BRD states explicitly: In general, BRD fails if: (1) there is consensus in the community against the specific change you'd like to make. (2) there is a dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus.
    The first is probably stretched because WT:ELEM does not override broader consensus, but at least holds true for the failed group 3 RfC. The second, though, accurately describes the current situation at WT:ELEM, as this is the same matter that megabytes of text have failed to resolve (i.e. stalemate, and a textbook case of TL;DR). Consequently, I'm not even sure if BRD is the correct way to approach the problem.
    As far as solutions, my main recommendations would be to (1) establish clearer project guidelines to avoid these TL;DR threads and blowouts, (2) to redirect focus to articles on which there are no disagreements, so editors can use their energy and skills to actually improve the encyclopedia instead of reaffirm a stalemate. ComplexRational (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Where to begin? I thank and compliment all responding editors here for their careful and well-describing replies. The replies show insight and understanding of the complicated recent history of the issue (five weeks?). In this, fellow-WP:ELEM members EdChem and ComplexRational are reflecting my thoughts in this (with more patience and eloquence). I note that two members, higly valuated by ELEM and with warm cooperating memories by me, have retired & blanked their userpages: YBG and Double sharp (a deep sigh over here, and a curse). If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN.
    I am pondering to add a bulleted reply here too, more factual and less descriptive. For example:
    1. [82].
    2. re by Sandbh: 'Bold edits don't require consensus'
    3. my reply: Not one [of Sandbh's] bullet is about 'time to talk'.
    • re "continuous cooperative editing": I call BS. Repeatedly, since mid-November, Sandbh (and Sandbh only) refers to some editing process labelled "continuous cooperative editing" [83][84]; first link names four subscripted editors. Also in the OP complaint here. I have not met any description (let alone definition), of this. To me, obviously kept an outsider to the concept, this is either (a) standard Wikipedia process or (b) a cult-creating process of preventing critique, as in: 'If you don't agree with this edit, you are breaking a secret bond'. Two of the four adhering editors have now blanked their userpages, indicating frustration.
    • re "DePeip [sic] ... in this [ANI] forum" (in original complaint): A good opportunity to reply to this jab. First, it is disingeneous for invoking (a) unspecified BF talk and (b) unrelated and/or finished business. ("You are bad now because you were bad yesterday"). Anyway, let me remind Sandbh and others to this recent ANI thread (Sep 28), ignited by Sandbh. Closure: "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented". Also note that multiple editors confirmed a staight BRD issue. IOW: Sure I am present at ANI. Vindicated. Time for Sandbh to read and digest.
    • "Source handling": WT:ELEM has not solved the issue of source handling. A discussion + polls about WP:TERTIARY > WP:SECONDARY > WP:PRIMARY > WP:OR(!) (wp talk NOTAFORUM, poll 2) went nowhere; I note the negative response by Sandbh showing evasion of commitment (8 members engaged). Then, a talk about doing DUE/UNDUE, FRINGE had not even started.
    • Overall, my opinion is that this situation floats into sight the running problems in ELEM discussion process & productivity into better articles. Interaction is still re editors not the edits. The discussion problems started early this year, then the ArbCom Case request paused the problematic interaction—synthetically, as we learn now.
    • Maybe more later. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Further developments in the caliph distruption

    I'm pretty sure Arbcom and most admins will be aware of this, but the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has just relit the fire after things were dying down. See [85] (thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for making me aware of this). They are now demanding we remove "misleading, wrong, deceptive and deceitful information through articles published on Wikipedia portraying Mirza Masroor Ahmad as a Muslim". Pahunkat (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone helpfully created WP:CALIPH. The "hosting of caricatures of Holy Prophet (PBUH)" is different. I guess it's wait and see. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven’t checked the latest on this development but, if not already done, I think it’s worth semi protecting related talk pages for a short duration and/or the use of an edit filter to send a warn message to non-autoconfirmed users, because editnotices don’t show on mobile. From my recollection in similar past cases, semiprot of talk does not de facto have a knockoff effect. The theory was that it shifts this burden to the Teahouse, but I don’t remember that being significantly true. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are comparing with SSR, Teahouse had some [86] but Helpdesk had more [87]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Impersonation of my signature

    An IP geolocating to Java has made a number of edits with my alt account signature, including proposed deletions that look like cut-paste copies of a PROD that I may have made in the past. E.g. [88][89] They were not made by me. As far as I can tell my alt account is still under my control. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    On closer look I don’t see anything with my name on it other than the cut-paste PRODs. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see some blocks were made. Thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Deprecated Editing by User:Amigao

    I was going to report Amigao for editing warring but I do wonder if this users editing needs further investigation and if they should instead be banned from editing posts regarding depreciation links instead. I came across them because they edited on this article but you can see from their own talk page and their contributions, that the user has issues with this type of editing.

    They appear to be editing almost at bot level with no consideration of what they are editing. Removing of links and ignoring things like instead of trying to find reliable sources or tagging instead. It says even on the deprecated sources page that Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately.

    I'm willing and will look for another source for the quote in article that started this but it was hardly a controversial comment and think Amigao overall editing needs assessment. NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Amigao should be less bot-like in removing deprecated sources. I reverted a careless removal of theirs the other day [90] and I also saw a deprecated source removal that I think was unhelpful in a different article last month [91]. Their most recent contributions list [92] shows them removing four deprecs from four different articles in one minute [93], [94], [95], [96], which is bot territory. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    His approach is highly disruptive as he makes zero effort to replace the sources he's removing. I would support a topic ban on removing sources without providing a replacement. Number 57 19:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    proxy detected

    IP 41.223.141.82 is a proxy or VPN from Botswana (see) I recommend a check to verify possible accounts editing from its subnet 41.223.141.0/24 93.146.44.135 (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You will need more evidence than IPQS. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nathan Larson (politician)

    Nathan Larson was recently arrested for kidnapping a 12 year old girl. This has been widely covered in US and some international media. We have an article about Nathan Larson based on his failed campaigns for political office. When I noticed that someone had added the arrest to the article, I started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard because I do not consider political candidates to be public figures. Two editors responded that he was a public figure (and therefore WP:BLPCRIME would allow the addition). Despite that discussion, Herostratus removed the arrest, nominated the article for deletion, and subsequently redacted my question at BLPN. It has now been redacted a third time by another editor, Nat Gertler citing WP:BLPTALK. That part of the policy starts "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This is not a vague allegation with poor sourcing, this is something that is well sourced and not in dispute. I am trying to have a discussion about this on the noticeboard intended for such discussions, but it will be difficult to have a meaningful consensus if the fact being discussed is left out of the discussion. This is obviously a hot button topic for some people and I would appreciate it if an admin with a cool head could intervene. Mo Billings (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If this person proves to be non-notable, then discussing their crimes is a BLP violation. Flat-out. So I suggest waiting for the AFD to conclude and, if the article is removed, nothing else needs done. If it is kept, then you can discuss the appropriateness of this information. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They have an article. They've has an article for years. It has survived at least one AfD. They appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Please don't start waving around other red herrings. Mo Billings (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You give no reason why the example used in WP:BLPTALK is not sufficient for continuing the conversation. Indeed, your repeating the specifics on this forum (which I will leave in others hands to redact), where simply saying "the matters covered in this source" (which those reading this can reach, given that it's an online, non-paywalled source) suggests that you're not including it because their specific nature is actually important to the discussion, because here you're dealing with a more abstract question here of whether certain BLP provisions apply to this individual. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatGertler: I don't want to have a discussion about Nathan Larson being "accused of doing a bad thing" (as Herostratus refactored it) when we are not discussing accusations but the well-documented fact that he was arrested and what he was arrested for is relevant to whether or not we include it in the article. It's not a lawsuit, it's kidnapping a child. We don't treat those events the same way. You redact a well-documented fact from the discussion about Nathan Larson, but the same noticeboard asks "Apparently there is a new rumor that the producer of the film Lolita slept with the 14-year-old actress playing the character of Lolita" and names producer James B. Harris. What exactly is it about the Nathan Larson article that inspires editors to act so bizarrely? Mo Billings (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they shouldn't have done that either, the Harris thing. People play with other people's reputations a lot here, when they shouldn't. I wasn't being bizarre, it just happened to randomly land on my windscreen. Herostratus (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that you haven't redacted it even though this is exactly what WP:BLPTALK talks about - a poorly referenced allegation. When I used the word "bizarre", I meant unusual, extraordinary, and inexplicable. I find it bizarre that you would redact my posting, yet leave that of GreenC. There's something about Nathan Larson that makes editors act strangely. Mo Billings (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as someone who hasn't worked on that article (to the best of my recollection; I've touched many articles in my day), I guess that my acting "bizarrely" as you accuse wasn't based on that. I am, however, someone who found the WP:BLPN discussion at a state when it was redacted and was able to follow what was being discussed by following the link to the given source, so all this claim that you need to mention the specifics in multiple forums in order to have the discussion just don't hold up. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And just in case it wasn't clear to anyone - I don't think that the arrest should be included in the article at this time. It's a bit off a moot point, since it seems very likely that he will be convicted of this or related crimes, but until that happens I think we should leave it out. That's why I started the discussion on the noticeboard. I did not expect that it would be a problem, or that multiple editors would twist policy to try to prevent a reasonable discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Climate change vulnerability

    Somebody just copy pasted a whole article. Climate change vulnerability

    https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Climate+change+vulnerability&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.226.19 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    https://www.okbuy.eu/info-economics_of_global_warming-part-03/


    https://www.scribd.com/document/183862204/Economics-And-Energy

    It appears to be a case of citogensis and Wikipedia mirrors from Economics of climate change -- I started the article with content from their (attributed in the edit summary), Sadads (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Brettandelle, lots of IPs, and the Killers band as a trio

    This is a case of block evasion and multiple identities used for edit warring. The username Brettandelle is being used to evade IP blocks. The person behind the username and the IPs is making statements and talk page requests that the Killers should be classified as a trio now that their guitarist is on hiatus.[97][98][99][100] (The Killers are still counting the guy as a bandmember.) They are also inserting the name of Tricky (musician) into articles about the recent activity of the musical group Massive Attack.[101][102][103] (Tricky left the band in 1994 except for a 2016 reunion.) They created and then recreated a hoax article at Draft:The Fizzy Whizzy Drinkers. Their writing style is childish, with many capitalisation errors.[104]

    This person was blocked multiple times on IPs in England. The username Brettandelle followed blocked IP 81.2.182.5 at the same article, to make the same edit,[105][106] a clear violation of WP:MULTIPLE. List of involved IPs below. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For several weeks now, there has been almost daily vandalism from IPs on a range of Marxism-related articles - usually adding the word "criminal", or other derogatory term, to the opening sentence. From the nature of the vandalism, this appears to be one obsessive vandal rather than many different people. Articles affected have included at least Classical Marxism, Communist International, Communist party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Dictatorship of the proletariat, Friedrich Engels, History of communism, Leninism, List of communist ideologies, Marxism, Marxism–Leninism, Marxist philosophy, Marxist schools of thought, Orthodox Marxism, Stalinism. IPs involved have included 79.21.4.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.21.93.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.40.93.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.41.95.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 79.54.142.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 87.19.95.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 87.8.97.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 87.8.98.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.232.119.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.236.119.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.239.101.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.248.32.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and several others. Would a range block be possible for these IPs? If not, it might be necessary to place semi-protection on these and related articles for a while until this person gives up. RolandR (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I protected most of the articles, with a few exception, for a month semi-protection plus a year pending changed. I hope it should help.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyberpunk 2029

    I first noticed this user's disruptive behavior at 2022 FIFA World Cup, with edits that include unexplained removal of content, unsourced information, and overlinking. A majority of edits continue to fall into the disruptive category, with most recent attempts occurring at Times Square Ball (while I would agree that it should say 2020-21, he kept changing it from 2021 to 2020, making it confusing to the reader). See also edit filter log for deeper history. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, the editor performs massive edits and doesn't even have the decency to fill out the edit summary. If Cyberpunk ignores this case and continues to make these types of edits, then a block should be implemented. Jerm (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User 212.156.71.30 / 37.155.240.129

    Dear admins, could you please have a look at the behaviour of user editing under IPs 212.156.71.30 AND 37.155.240.129? It looks like he/she is WP:Nothere to build encyclopedia but to push POV/alternative history, as he/she:

    1. engages in WP:EDITWAR by removing reliable Human Rights Watch source (twice) and PBS source from Hadrut article without explanation diff ,diff
    2. tries concealing the use of more than one IP by manually editing the automatically added IP address diff
    3. uses ad-hominem remarks towards Armenian ethnicity showing ethnic intolerance diff, diff
    4. makes baseless accusations against a user diff and views Wikipedia as WP:Battleground
    5. does not care about WP:Civility diff
    6. tries to push an unpopular theory that Syrian "mercenaries lured by money", rather than Armenian diaspora fighters, fought in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war on Armenian side diff

    Many thanks. Regards, Armatura (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear administrators, this user accuses me of some stuff, please have a look. 1: I am new to WP world so didn't excatly know how/where to do. And didn't insist on the edit after second time, someone in an edit war would go on. Same happened here twice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Armenian_protests#Analysis -but this time I learned properly doing it and my edit stayed. I in no way have bad intentions of edit war. 2: I edited the automatic ip because I wanted to make clear that it was still me, the same user, relpying. Earlier I used my computer at work, then my computer at home. And I have already explained the accuser about this. I can totally prove this again from my work computer that this is same person. I won't do this again, my intentions was just to make sure thay they know I am same person and not someone else. 3: See nothing wrong here, the accuser himself first started revealing my ip origin, please have a careful look. 4: First of all, I edited my own edit in a talk before even someone replied to me. Why the accuser tries to dig in the not-final version of my edit and bring it here is clear. Please have a careful look. 5: See nothing wrong here, answering his/her accusations in proper way. 6: Here I am literally correcting them based on the article that they provided. This one is complete non-sense accusation. Please have a look. This user became hostile after their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#%22Operation_Iron_Fist%22 They want the codename for the operation removed from the first sentence because they "wp:dont-like-it". Others and I disagreed, more info on the talk. You judge. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.155.240.129 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=996489234"