Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Coey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Djm-leighpark made this comment, "Are you trying to out me? Because if I have to defend further I may need to out." No where have I ever in any way threatened to out this person. The final clause, "I may need to out" made me think they are using this false accusation as a way to imply they will out my personal information.

I gave this person the benefit of the doubt and posted this reply, (see the bottom of the diff for my reply and note below regarding the mixed up order). hoping they would clarify they meant something different, perhaps they were referring to their other account Bigdelboy, but they declare this as an alt on both pages, so what outing could be done? But again I gave them the benefit of the doubt in hopes they would clarify or at least just drop the matter. I figured if anything needed done, the closing admin could handle it.

They responded with this comment They chose not to clarify they intended something other than what I understood, but told me to take it to ANI (so here we are). They finish their comment with "I will say this AfD is still running however and points possibly remain to be addressed." Since they have clearly stated their points opposition to the AfD, what does this mean? I understand this as a follow up to out my personal information if I continue to support the AfD.

(Please note: the comment ordering and indenting was mixed up inadvertently by my confusion due to the placement of an image. I tried to fix it and another editor removed the image. I believe everything is in the correct order. It was my fault I placed my comment in the wrong spot. I altered none of the comments)

The point I would like addressed:

1. The accusation "Are you trying to out me?" which I never in any way did. [1]
2. The comment " Because if I have to defend further I may need to out". [2]
3. The comment "this AfD is still running however and points possibly remain to be addressed" [3]

I wouldn't be hard to find a TimothyBlue in Los Angeles from the info on my userpage, but I find the implications above unacceptable. Thank you.   // Timothy :: talk  18:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have noticed a tendency for Djm to fly off the handle in disputes as well as get verbose to the point of being unreadable. My only suggestion here would be that Djm perhaps take some time off and reflect on this and how to respond to editors and be concise before stronger measures are suggested or taken. Praxidicae (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, reading the discussion myself, Djm's threat to out TimothyBlue should be treated the same as a legal threat and they should be blocked until it's rescinded and they demonstrate an understanding of our policies. Praxidicae (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• He hasn't edited since receiving the ANI notice so I suggest letting him discuss here to see if this may be resolved without blocking.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If Djm-leighpark drops the stick and retracts the threat, it's settled as far as I'm concerned.   // Timothy :: talk  19:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflictx2): Ah. I have noticed this. The outing would be self outing of myself (revealing personal information) in order to explain certain things to present reasoning to TimothyBlue ... this relates to among other things as to timings of access to resourced. I am spitting feathers at the allegations made by TimothyBlue on the thread and my attempts to fake sources. Yes I am under pressure at the moment ... and some of this relates to resolution of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 ... people should note in that .... For me normally that might be a month, but currently its three and I'll negotiate with that with any designated WP:FUNKy person bar one if anyone thinks I'm being awkward or unreasonable.. Siad to Barkeep49 reopening that AFD would likely lead to trouble. MFD's going on such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:NASLite this one are a real pain .... The closer Scottywong and offers a month and little more ... its hardly surprising something breaks because I was expecting that. Since this is an outing call I will say I was very close to one of the big and worst outings earlier this year and I'd expect TimothyBlue to spot that when he researches history though I will absolutely say I was not involved. Funkies can contact me on that if necessary. It also (slightly) relevant to the Discussion Alerts have been held for a couple of days recently and that (perhaps) has lead to less partication in that AfD. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue I have no issue with any outing and you will not be outed by me or by me inciting a third party to do the same. Dropping the stick may be a different matter as I have allegations at an AfD to examine. there is also a question of your excessively deletionist approach and I am inclined to think you have a "red mist" approach to this. With regards to comments at AfD with me becoming an NPP I respect the work they do though occassionly have had need to bring they to DRV for e.g. overzealous speedies. I have not asked for autopatroller privilege because I steward a spectrum of drafts and may on occasion bring one to mainspace that would be marginal so its better they go via NPP. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, I am not sure what the ping for me is. You did mention stress and concern around the Code pages. The 1 month deadline is only for deletion on enwiki. I don't think you only have a month to perfect them on wikibooks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 , not related to this ANI I am doing automation that refers to en.wiki. It is also the case the transwiki you kindly organised was a cut/paste not with full versions. So I am likely to have to repeat that the long way round. I still expect some automation I am preparing to be on the en wiki in situ and if its gonered I'm likely giving up or whatever. In which case I have wasted many many many hours this month. I've invested a lot if it goes belly up, but perhaps that what people want and they dont want to attribute to people properly per SA licences. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Djm-leighpark, I consider the matter of outing explained and closed.

I think the "question of your excessively deletionist approach" and "red mist" approach is actually just an angry attempt to divert attention away from what has been exposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Coey.

I certainly make mistakes, everyone does and I've shown a willingness to listen to others and change my mind based on discussion, not just be offended and go on the attack. You seem to feel the need to attack, which is shown in the AfD and in this discussion. This combative I must win, I must be right, attitude is ultimately what is causing you stress. You need to stop it because ultimately it is self-defeating, even if you win some arguments. This isn't patronizing, it's goodwill advice.   // Timothy :: talk  22:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we have the outing matter settled as that is important, but to say what is causing me stress would require me to self out some more stuff and that might be very silly and impacting. You have displayed a singular view as to what Wikipedia is and and quite frankly straight to AfD on that stub remains unbelievable. Options such as notability tagging would have been the right aproach. I have yet to anaylse the editing of the article to see if certain comments you made were justifiable. I have learned to have the opposite of your advice, its not clever and you need to face up to yopur approach if you are a deletionist. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I keep giving you exits and you refuse to take them and keep criticizing my approach, so I'll keep the discussion going.

• Explain why you created an article with sources that you did not read.
• Explain why you felt this was a notable subject when you admitted you did not read the sources.
• Explain why you think this subject is notable.
• Explain why you questioned my evaluation of the sources you used, when you never read the sources in the first place [4], [5], [6], []
• You state "I have yet to anaylse the editing of the article to see if certain comments you made were justifiable." What does this mean? You wrote the article days ago and you have to analyze the editing to see if my comments are justified?
• You state "and quite frankly straight to AfD on that stub remains unbelievable" why is it unbelievable. My BEFORE showed it was not notable because I read the sources. I researched it. You the author of the article did not read the sources and did not research it. It belongs at AfD, not tagged for eternity as maybe not notable.

You wrote a junk article with made up sources and yet you disparage and attack me for bringing it to AfD:

• "Has the nom. actually read (Chacksfield, 2003) or at least even bothered to look it up ?" [7]. This is unbelievably arrogant given that you admitted you never read the source when you created the article.
• "lets be very clear you are the one who wasted everyone's time with this AfD." [8]
• "If Wikipedia is going to allow persons careering around with little purpose but to destroy peoples work then this article needs to be deleted" [9]
• "Ah ... not the last word. well stop mumbling and file a..." [10]
• "Unbelievably incompetent nomination in my opinion." [11]
• "and you need to face up to yopur approach if you are a deletionist." I nominate non-notable articles and have an 85% match rate at AfD. You create articles without reading sources. When will you face up to using this approach?
• Finally you said "You will likely now WP:HOUND me for life." [12] when all I have done is give you exits to stop this but you keep coming back, criticizing me and refusing to let it go.

Since Djm-leighpark insists on making this about me and the AfD I wrote and will not drop this, I think everyone should look at the article he wrote and the AfD I wrote and see how our actions and discussion compare.   // Timothy :: talk  23:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to wait to post this until Djm responded, hopefully with an apology and with logic but since that isn't happening...seems to be a case of Boy who cried wolf, any time their behavior or edits are brought up, they immediately cry "hounding!"[13][14][15]. They also immediately become combative and hurl out insults.[16] or go on nonsensical tirades. Praxidicae (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— ... but you couldn't wait. whatever. I'm off to bed for a bit.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Last comment from me on this unpleasant matter and then I will again attempt to drop this. If he attacks again, I'll leave it to others if/how to respond.

• If anyone wants to discuss how I understand notability or verification related to AfD, I welcome it at my talk page (but please wait a few days after this). Like everyone I make mistakes and I explore edges sometimes, but I know how to drop the stick when I'm wrong or there is a clear consensus against my view.
• The above discussed article at AfD isn't even close to an edge or a mistake.
• I've given Djm-leighpark many chances to back off and drop this. They keep coming back. I've said all I'm going to say about it with this last statement: The community should ask Djm-leighpark for an explanation and they can decide where to go from there.

I'm off to finish an article about a book.   // Timothy :: talk  04:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: I'll take the opportunity of expanding the point your shouting about: ( "Has the nom. actually read (Chacksfield, 2003) or at least even bothered to look it up ?" [17]. This is unbelievably arrogant given that you admitted you never read the source when you created the article. ). While is not online to my knowledge it is to be expected during your BEFORE you your would have examined it closely enough to identify it as a biography, as that information was available online, and therefore reasoned significant information on the subject was highly probable. At the time of writing the article, which was done a one shot stub direct into mainspace, it is true while I did not have (Chacksfield, 2003) I had sufficient confidence to have bought a second hand copy online for something like £/$/€5 - £/$/€10; the confidence being enhanced by my possession of (Chacksfield, 2010) by the same author and the knowledge of the quality of that work. I own and have on loan a mixture of Irish Railway history books, and was aware of the subject through them. (Murray, McNeill) was always going to have a solid WP:RS on Coey and the initial version Old revision of Robert Coey on 06:23, 20 July 2020. By 19:41, 21 July 2020‎ Old revision of Robert Coey I'd expanded a little and couple more sources. On or just before 23 July 2020 my (Chatsdfield, 2003) and I was delighted by the detail of the content, which I then started to add (albeit running straight into a source discrepancy about Coey's later education, in some ways not important but in others annoying different in detail....). I'm not quite sure about how much of this could be back-worked out by an independent but there were significance allegations of "but still fails the WP:SIGCOV portion of WP:GNG: the sources do not discuss the subject in depth." which were not retracted. The point is, actually I've lost track of what the point currently is but I know I have to revisit the discussion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I can't let go of this. explain

• Above you state: "On or just before 23 July 2020 my (Chatsdfield, 2003) and I was delighted by the detail of the content, which I then started to add"

So you claim to have had this book on 23 July and you were "delighted by the detail of the content"

• On the AfD you state on August 21: " Unfortuately the description of the book {Chacksfield,2003) easilyfound at [18] is primary and somewhat puffy and not eligible."
• On the AFd you state on August 21: "The TOC of (Chacksfield,2003) seems to proves its a passing mention also" [19]

On July 23, you were "delighted by the detail of the content" about a book you received, but on August 21, you changed you mind and it becomes "he TOC of (Chacksfield,2003) seems to proves its a passing mention also" - The table of content? Did you lose the book between July 23 and Aug 21? Why did you have to look at a booksellers description of the book to discover it was "is primary and somewhat puffy and not eligible" if you had the book on July 23?

• If you don't have the book why are you adding references to the article from it?
• Above: "The point is, actually I've lost track of what the point currently is" apparently you've lost track of the book and your stories also.

Does anyone know of the right words to describe Djm-leighpark's explanation? The only ones that come into my mind are "Dropped from section; referred to Dean's office for investigation".  // Timothy :: talk  09:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue, Can I ask what you are looking to happen at this time? After looking at the whole dicussion, I think the word you are looking for is "gas lighting", as I don't see a better explanation for some of the bizarre logic Djm-leighpark is employing. The point of Gas lighting is to get you to act out aggressively, which is what you are starting to do. I suggest you take a minute to decide what you want, put together your five best diffs with a short explanation, and then ask directly for what you want to happen. Otherwise this will start looking like two people arguing.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AlmostFrancis, 48 hours and no response. Ah well. Unless someone raises a proposal I leaves the missus so I can stop accusing her (usually unfairly) of hiding the books I use for sources then we likely have a close. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, so by thanking me are you admitting that you were just gaslighting TimothyBlue with your rather bizare logic. Obviously you shouldn't do that anymore, which is somthing I hope you take from this discussion.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlmostFrancis: Well I am certainly being sarcastic about TimothyBlue conclusions about what they see as explanations for my actions ... about what should be determinable from online sources and what should not, and my ability to lose books left right and centre. For example I was down Sussex Mondays 24 August 2020 and took File:Chichester-Ave-De-Chartes-Covid-19-Pop-up-Cyclelane-20200824-with-cyclist.jpg ... What I cannot prove (though a checkuser could probably confirm was consistent) that I left the SD card in a computer there for upload and was able to retrieve it today and upload it from Hampshire. I also cannot prove I eventually found my Boocock book in Sussex today and was able to make the following edit [20] back here in Hampshire. Like I recall I not in Sussex from Monday 17 August 2020 to until 21 August 2020 when I went to Sussex losing my wallet & bank cards on the way but uploading a picture of the TOC of (Chatsfield 2003) to add evidence it is a substantial treatise on Robert Coey and noting the description of the book contents which was available online would also have given weaker information to the same. The article history also indicates I had taken some time to consider how to resolve a discrepancy between (Murray & McNeil, 1976) and (Chatsfield, 2003) would be an indicator I was trying my good faith best to really try to use sources correctly. Hindsight probably reveals I had chosen to create the Coey article as a stub and expand later, this is a time honoured by to develop a Wikipedia article including a biography, which TimothyBlue may be on mission to eliminate, although that is where new WikiPedia contributors will come from. If I look on how this developed there appears to be total lack of appreciation that perhaps particularly in Harvard referencing while one part of source may be cited that does not imply that is the only part of the source that is relevant; such a notion is bizarre bizzare. I have probably gone incoherrent agian. People must htink I am quite insane. 04:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Given we are still here which means I have to check back here every 12 hours or so I'll comment on the sources used on the this first revision of the Robert Coey article, which was started from a redlink (which I myself might have set up, it sometimes helps me not misname the article), though in general I hate redlinks especially having colour defective eyesight. I sometimes go route one to mainspace if I think I can manage it in a single edit session to avoid mopping up the links from a move from draft. The main body of the article as created is fairly obviously sourced from (Murray,McNeill,1976) .. I used to use the Hants County library WDC copy (per oclc link) but around the start of covid I bought my own as I got tired of paying fines on a load of books if I forgot to renew in time, had both for a bit until the libraries re-opened). My contributions will show I have used this from time to time previously. The (Chacksfield, 2003) at the time of article was listed as further reading, I had been in my own pocket and purchased the book on the basis of a description of it that it covered Robert Coey and was suitable for further reading, however at point of article creation it was not used to support any content of the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Djm-leighpark: Why are you concentrating on article creation? I don't think anyone has said the problem occurred at creation. At 23:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC) you added Chacksfield 2003 as an inline citation for a certain piece of information and you said "Starting working in information from Chacksfield and have stumbled across some apparent source discrepences with Murray-McNeill to returning section to under construction". Had you actually read Chacksfield, at least in part, at this time? Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had written the stub from Murray-McNeill at the point of creation but had ordered the Chacksfield biography at that point which arrived 22/23 July or something like that. Chacksfield 2003 was far more detailed about Coey's education but seemed to contradict some details I'd already use from Murray-McNeil (We are talking educational details maybe a date or location or something, I forget exactly as I write this and I'm working from memory not the sources ... and we are talking about 1860s-1870s). I basically decided I'd go away re-read the things slowly and I made the section Under-construction:n0t-ready as I wasn't 100% confident what I'd written before was correct. ... Okay I've just had a look at the article and I know the problem area because I'e mae a note on it. I think Murray-McNeill claims Coey was at Inchicore Railway Works while Chacksfield claimed he was doing a degree. I think that is actually possible and from memory R.E.L. Maunsell interleaved this a few years later under Aspinall (or Ivatt)). Anyway I ended up ignoring it for a week, seen the bot took of the under construction after 7 days and worked in appropriate content to the best of my ability. The reason for concentrating on this is the shout This is unbelievably arrogant given that you admitted you never read the source when you created the article. which may need some explanation. Is there anything else you'd like me to talk about or elaborate? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stayfree76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been watching talk:Death of George Floyd, Derek Chauvin and talk:George Floyd for some time. Stayfree76 is a new user (2020-07-02) with under 300 edits. Of those, well over 100 are to these three talk pages, where he advances a pro-police POV often employing novel theories. His mainspace edits are few, and include, for example, this, where he "corrected" Chauvin and Floyd's overlapping shifts as security guards with Chauvin having worked there "as an off duty police officer" whilen Floyd worked as a security guard. I'm not aware that "off duty police officer" is an actual job. His comments on the talk pages are now into WP:NOTFORUM territory, IMO, and are prolonging argument rather than settling any substantive points of content. I suspect that these contentious pages would be quieter and more productive without his input for a while. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support tban from George Floyd, broadly construed - Stayfree unfortunately takes up an inordinate amount of other editors' time with unhelpful talk page argumentation, which includes a lot of OR and FORUM-type posts, such as substituting what secondary sources say in favor of their own OR or interpretation of primary sources, as well as arguing that various things are against policy when Stayfree appears to really misunderstand the relevant policy. Example:

• Talk:George Floyd/Archive 1#Misleading/False Information, which involves arguing that what is in the article cited to secondary sources should be replaced with their own OR interpretation of a police bodycam transcript. Other editors' repeated entreaties to WP:OR were unheeded. Stayfree then started a duplicate conversation at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Problem with details as described.
• Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Misinformation in the section Minneapolis police response, wherein he argues that content that is explicitly verified by eight sources in the paragraph at issue is SYNTH. When a ninth source explicitly stating the same thing is shown to Stayfree, Stayfree argued that the paragraph had to go unless the ninth source was added, as if the other eight sources didn't say the same thing.
• There are more examples at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, Talk:George Floyd, Talk:Derek Chauvin, the archives of all three pages, and Stayfree's talk page.
• More than just being incorrect about policy, is an I'm-never-wrong attitude.

This editor seems to mean well, but simply doesn't have enough experience to productively participate in these discussions, and they don't seem to be taking feedback on board or adjusting their approach at all. Lev!vich 18:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a person involved I don't want to say any more than to agree with the summary above by Levivich. Basic lack of knowledge of wikipedia practices aside, I am happy to work with new editors constructively, but the user here repeatedly either misrepresented sources by omitting key information, or refused to accept the sources said what they said even when the words were quoted to them.

Persistent attempts to use wikipedia policy incorrectly seemed like a quote mining exercise by the user. Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i felt like i should throw this out there. i have never had an edit to main page reverted. some have been adjusted, but the one about the police officer thing... well im the one that started the discussion over a month ago and the change was made by another editor as the page was still protected. and the other pages needed to be changed for consistency.

• JzG publicly stated he was on a active campaign to get me banned here
• Levivich, is on record saying But the most important thing is we tell the reader what actually happened, moreso than telling the reader what some incorrectly reported.. here
• and Koncorde, doesnt seem to understand the difference between citing a source "somewhere in the paragraph" instead of following the statement. i was trying to inform them that having the source cited in some random place does not help and makes the statement look unverified when checked. StayFree76 ^talk 21:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Stayfree76, no, I did not say I was on an active campaign to get you banned. I noted that your approach was a fast track to a ban, which is not the same thing at all. You already got formally warned about personal attacks, for example. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your words here's the deal: you stop trying to use Wikipedia to fix the fact that the sources are "wrong", and I'll stop advocating for your removal from the article that is the primary topic of your obsession.StayFree76 ^talk 22:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is literally right there where the statement is. Given you still haven't accepted the sources say what the sources say, I cannot take anything you say as good faith. You haven't suggested moving a source. You haven't suggested rearranging content that doesn't also include removing the sourced information. You have only suggested entirely removing sourced information because you said it isn't sourced in the sources that directly say the thing you say it doesn't. Any arguments made have been inherently misleading, off topic, or misrepresentation of the sources. Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ill just leave this quote from me here. ok, so why isnt the Minnesota Post cited? the only one that says what the wiki says is not cited... maybe cite the source and call it good? you could have saved us all the time and just linked that source to begin with... next time, cite the source that says the thing that goes in the wiki. StayFree76 ^talk 22:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Minnesota Post is yet another source that says the thing you say the other existing sources dont. You still have not acknowledged the other sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koncorde, yup - and that is SOP for this user, alas. A time-sink, as Levivich says. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have found StayFree's contributions occasionally useful. I and others have warned them that contentious articles are a bad place to learn how to edit, to no avail. When a brand new editor comes in and the only thing they're interested in editing is the most contentious articles on the site, it just kind of wears me out. I think this editor is basically well-intentioned, but I do think they also have an agenda. I'm not sure it's compatible with editing contemporary American politics. —valereee (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can you find an example of an edit i made that got reverted? also, my change requests are at least 80% of the time put into the article ("occasionally" is a little hurtful, tbh). also, i have edited the following pages: Cherokee Nation, Cherokee Nation (1794–1907), Cherokee language, Comparison of firewalls, Defund the police, Derek Chauvin, Firewall (computing), George Floyd, Jeremiah Wolfe, Killing of George Floyd, Medicine man, Sergei Skripal. StayFree76 ^talk 01:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stayfree76, I apologize for saying something hurtful. There are many contributors whose contributions I find only occasionally useful. I'm pretty sure my own contributions are only occasionally useful. The point I'd love you to take is that working at contentious articles is a terrifically bad idea for a new editor. If you really are interested in building an encyclopedia, you'd say, "Oh, really? Okay, I'll go edit at (whatever else interests you) until I figure out what's going on here." But that's not what you're doing, which makes me think you have an agenda that is never going to change. It makes me think the reason you are here is not to build an encyclopedia. —valereee (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

valereee what agenda could i have? i was on record defending a Floyd from self incriminating himself with the "hooping" incident. this is the same as before. i read a sentence, click the cited source, read the course, propose/make changes as necessary to correctly represent the information. for example, the wiki said "kueng identified as african american"... but when you look at the source it said "kueng is african american" so i fixed it. maybe go look at the other wikis i have worked on? some of them were major. StayFree76 ^talk 01:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: @stayfree does seem to be making unhelful edits to that page for the reason they believe what is described in the official sources is different to their take on what happened. I am sure they are making these in good faith, but are new to Wiki (as am I) and dont appreciate the rules that govern what sources are allowed and what are not. And the fact that only what is stated in allowed sources should be printed and no original research or personal views should be added. I think @stayfree should take their concerns to the article talkpage and engage more to better understand what they need to do if they want to make changes to the article. Always be polite and assume goodfaith, trust me, on here that is very important (should be in life as well obviously) Just trying to push what you want into an article and being not 100% polite at the same time really will not help what you want to achieve. Discuss it @stayfree and you will get a consensus and hopefully make the article better for all Giant-Dwarfs (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: also wanted to point out that your user page shows you made an oath to Take the mantra of assuming good faith to within a whisker of absurdity. and i feel you are starting to divert from that. i am bringing this up because Welcome other editors pointing out to me when I fail to meet the first three pledges.. (this is not accusatory and simply how i feel and comes from a place of friendship.)StayFree76 ^talk 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stayfree76, the problem for me is that although you've been advised to go learn to edit somewhere not as contentious, you've insisted on learning to edit at contentious articles. This is a very common issue with problematic accounts, and most editors have seen editors with such an edit history turn out to be trolls. I'm not saying you are a troll. I'm just saying your edit pattern is one that is similar to many trolls. If you really are here to build an encyclopedia, please go find an article to edit that is not a contentious current event. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, SF76's top mainspace talk edits: 55 at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, 48 at Talk:Derek Chauvin, 38 at Talk:George Floyd. —valereee (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sample WP:FORUM talk page comment from StayFree76. It's OK to have an "agenda" if comments are not WP:OR, generally not WP:UNDUE viewpoints, and geared towards improving the article. I think most regular editors on Floyd articles have made an editorial comment at some point, some more obvious than others. But StayFree76 is developing a reputation for veering off a bit more. I'm OK if they can voluntarily provide us an actionable plan of how they will scale back.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, more tot he point, that's pretty much all they do. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I did make an edit based off a discussion they initiated at talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1#Misleading/False_Information. Still, I understand how people can be frustrated.—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: but that statement was in response to another editors "forum comment" and not just me randomly going in forum mode. the main thing here is that, i havent had a single edit reverted and at least 80% of my proposed changes went into effect. wouldn't those stats show that i am just trying to make Wikipedia better? i never make an edit i think someone would revert for any reason, as a personal policy, and i think that is clearly shown. at the same time, i have worked for the US federal government (held a secret clearance) and have worked for multiple state level government agencies including emergency services. things that may seem like OR are just simply from experience, but at the same time, you will never see me put that into a main without an RS. also, i have done a lot of post grad work. i am very in tune with making statements non pointy or knowing when to attribute, for example. for the people saying i am "a new editor that needs to learn", i have been writing academic reports, or professional write-ups on incidents (i work in cyber crime prevention/ internet security) for over 10 years and have also testified in court a few times as a "witness" to a crime. StayFree76 ^talk 16:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stayfree76, like I said earlier, there is leeway for "forum" comments. People are saying you have crossed that line. My suggestion is to listen to the feedback and tell us how you will address it, else it'll be left to a closer to decide what action, if any, to take. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ah, i see what you are saying. this is my final and official last statement on the matter then:

I feel i have done nothing wrong and the initial post to this is a WP:witch hunt, especially when the poster hasn't even engaged in any of those wikis in a long time. also, i feel the intent of this post was to be punitive and falls outside of The only purpose of blocking, banning, and other sanctions is to protect the encyclopedia from harm.. in closing, i will no longer post here and defer to the result of the process. StayFree76 ^talk 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stayfree76, of course you feel you have done nothing wrong. Absence of self-criticism is one of the problems. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We need a resolution. EEng 04:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  EEng, consdering !voting.—Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I !voted. Lev!vich 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support a very short topic ban, just to get this editor's attention. —valereee (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban from George Floyd and police issuse, broadly construed.--Jorm (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose but... Oppose total topic ban, suggest article space tban. It sound like an editor who is acting in good faith but doesn't get it yet. It also sounds like some people are saying their is some good contribution here. What about narrower article only tban. This would leave the editor free to make contributions to the talk pages and suggest/propose changes but they wouldn't be able to actually edit the article itself. It seems like there aren't talk page behavior issues so some sort of balance may help. Stayfree76, I can understand your frustration. For example, prior to Wirecard's crash, there were some smart people on Twitter who were making the case why the company was a fraud. They turned out to be right but RS policies say we don't use Twitter feeds as RSs no matter how smart the author or solid the evidence. Its just how Wikipedia is supposed to work. What should happen is "in the end" Wikipedia should be right but that often means that articles about current events may change significantly once we have some historical perspective. Springee (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Springee, the problem isn't their article edits. It's their talk page edits. They take up an inordinate amount of other editors' time at talk pages for George Floyd. We've tried to be patient, we've tried to explain that they should learn to edit on noncontentious articles, to no avail. —valereee (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case I wouldn't give my oppose too much weight. However, if the editor can't edit the article then the other editors can always just ignore Stayfree76's comments if they aren't adding value. So long as they aren't harming the article space or acting in an uncivil fashion I think we should try to keep the tbans limited in scope with the option to increase if problems continue. Springee (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 89MsHm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there. This user just suddenly came out of nowhere and in a bizarre manner casting several aspersions towards me (WP:ASPERSIONS), completely uncalled for. I did warn him but he continued. Generally looking at his edits doesn't conspire much confidence that he is here to WP:BUILDWP.

'His personal negative attitude towards Azerbaijan shouldn't close his eyes to facts and documents. He has already demonstrated his aggressive and biased attitude towards this country, which motivates his nonobjective interventions to the article'

'Your hateful comments on Azerbaijan are more than enough to prove your aggression towards the country. You can't threaten others just because you don't like what they say. If you have anger issues go get help. P.S. Glorious history is in the past, the future will be worse.'

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed by HistoryofIran (talk)'s aggressive attitude towards Azerbaijan which lets me assume that his interventions related to articles on Azerbaijan might be biased. P.S. I don't know how he managed to delete his comment on Karabakh Khanate article edits where he said something like "Any official source of the dictator regime of Azerbaijan is unreliable". I hope admins can manage the situation objectively.89MsHm (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More aspersions ^^. I'll let the admins handle the rest of this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't deleted it, I found the comment, here it is: "In WIkipedia we use academic sources by historians who are spezialised in this field, not some supposed president library made by an authoritarian regime. Keep this up and you will be reported." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erivan_Khanate&curid=4832454&diff=975043191&oldid=975013866

1. If you look at the source, it is relied on archive documents. 2. Whatever the government is in Azerbaijan, you should learn to respect the country and its people's choice. 3. You seem to like to threaten users by reporting them. 89MsHm (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with respecting a country/people or not. Anyone with basic WP:CIR can see that. Stop this fixation towards me and your country, I couldn't care less about it (or any other country for that matter, before you start accusing me again). And no, it is still not a reliable source, not matter how much you want it to be - read the guidelines. EDIT: Admins might wanna see that this user has a history of behaviour like this [21]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

89MsHm Threatening to make changes if I don't stop participating [22] Maidyouneed (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As outlined in Talk:Ivar Lovaas#New changes by User:ATC and Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness, 66.244.121.212 (his other IP address is 68.45.46.177) keeps reverting valid sources describing the history of literature reviews on Discrete trial training—the structured form of applied behavior analysis that is widely used for autistic children and is based on over 50 years of research—which follows WP:MEDRS guidelines. User:Sundayclose already asked him to remove the unnecessary picture of the drawing in the Aversion therapy article, which I had to remove as well, but he reverted it back (see here: User talk:66.244.121.212#August 2020). I think he needs to be blocked. ATC ^{. Talk} 01:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. Sundayclose (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Just fixed the sentence. ATC ^{. Talk} 16:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has repeatedly shown contempt for the guidelines in his attempt to overstate the evidence in favor of discrete trial training by Ivar Lovaas. While a 2018 Cochrane review finds that evidence in favor of the technique is "weak" and at high risk of bias, the OP keeps insisting on representing the viewpoints of non-MEDRS sources, and on misrepresenting or failing to give due weight to the POV of Cochrane. The technique claims to produce normal functioning in about half of autistic children, and even to raise IQ (by 30 points!). You may be interested to know that one study found that promoters of this technique (like the OP) routinely ignore criticisms and refuse to acknowledge weaknesses in the evidence. So basicly, he's a fringe pusher.

I have tried to educate the OP about WP:MEDRS guidelines here, here, and here. I have warned him against willfully disobeying these guidelines here and here. When it became clear that things were not going well for the OP sourcing-wise, he attempted to recruite User:Doc James to his viewpoint. I politely warned him that this could be construed as an attempt at canvassing, and we went on to have a rather strange conversation in which the OP claimed that autism is caused by an "infused head growth". Doc James did not respond, and so he went on to contact User:Alexbrn^[1] (who has in the past expressed sympathy for these viewpoints), and User:Sundayclose, with whom I had recently had an unfortinite disagreement with on a related topic. This was a blatant attempt at canvassing. As you can see from my links, I said as much both users' talk pages, and neither user got involved. When this did not work, he asked Sundayclose to block me. Sundayclose declined the request (possibly because he is not an administrator), and so here we are.

I propose that the OP receive a sanction on behaviorism-related topics, as he is clearly not capable of neutrality on these issues, or of obeying guidelines in related discussions. As long as he is allowed to edit these articles, I fail to see how we can improve them. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I don't know what you were thinking when you edit warred to add that highly inappropriate image to Aversion therapy, but it was a mistake. El_C 03:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our dispute was about sourcing, not the appropriateness of the image. While that was not the best editing I have ever done, it did not violate WP:3RR. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct — 3RR was not violated, though WP:DE might have... El_C 03:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While you are free to add you voice to the discussion about whether or not the picture was inappropriate, as it was a well-sourced image drawn by a former resident of the Judge Rotenberg Center of an actual aversion therapy that is well-documented to have occurred there for many years. Regardless, that dispute is cold, unlike the one at present. --66.244.121.212 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as an uninvolved admin, I am telling you it is inappropriate. And how is it "cold" if you reverted the insertion of that image a mere few hours ago? El_C 04:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my incorrect statement. My dispute with Sundayclose was cold (as we both agreed that the image was properly sourced), but I had forgotten about the revert with the OP.

It is my opinion that this image is appropriate, as it provides an accurate visual description of a form of aversion therapy that was approved by the courts, cleared by the FDA, and used at the Judge Rotenberg Center for over 25 years before it was banned in 2020. It was drawn by a former resident of the center name Jennifer Msumba, and depicts her receiving shocks from the Graduated Electronic Decelerator while restrained to a four-point board. Jennifer has graciously agreed to led Wikipedia use this image. This punishment (multiple GED shocks while restrained to a four-point board) was inflicted on many residents, as is made clear by the linked articles. I know that this is a tough topic, but per WP:NOTCENSORED, the appropriateness of such an image should at least be up for discussion. You are free to add your voice to the debate, but please do not try unilaterally make the decision, as admins do not have that kind of power. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot. I thought we'd finally adopted painful electric shocks for use here at ANI, as I've long advocated. On a more serious point, the article tone and style is seriously off, with a huge RIGHTGREATWRONGS problem. EEng 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, if you're able to gain clear consensus for its inclusion, then that's one thing — but in the interim, yes, I do have that authority, per WP:DE. El_C 05:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Then I'll seek consensus on the talk page. And thank you for linking me that rule, which I was not previously aware of. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• New issue: After I posted this complaint, the OP began to whitewash discrete trial training and Ole Ivar Lovaas by downplaying their use of aversives. You may read the rather one-sided discussions of this whitewashing here and here. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that 66.244.121.212 is the IP who added over 2,000 bytes of copyrighted material to the article in question. This had to be removed by @Diannaa:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Diannaa: It's my impression that the IP is trying to WP:OWN the article, and run it as a PoV attack page against the institution. The article is extremely biased and should probably be reduced in size significantly, so it can be rebuilt in an NPoV way. I complained about this a while back, but no action was taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The POV-pushing and copyvio are reminiscent of problems we had last year[23] (see sock suspicions below). Alexbrn (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Beyond My Ken: You have reported that you think the article on the Judge Rotenberg Center is POV, but you have not raised the issue on the talk page. I would be very interested in having that discussion with you if you are still up for it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, no, I am not up for it. I have no energy to take on another badly slanted article. That doesn't mean that the article is any less of a hit job, as any fair-minded unbiased editor can easily see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then we’ll just have to disagree. I’m open to having this discussion with anyone who wants to have it. In my opinion, the center appears to be whole notable for the atrocities that occur there: In everything I ever read about it, I found nothing positive that was reliable. Some sources try to claim that they are supplying an effective medical treatment, but the FDA made clear that this is not true in the report where they banned the GED. Other claim that they rely mostly on positive support, using punishment only as a last resort. But this is also not true, as found In multiple state investigations. Basically, what is boils down to is this— the JRC claims that what they do is medical treatment, while its opponents claim it is torture. But the FDA has declared that what they do is not medical treatment and the representative of the United Nations has declared that it is torture— so how can we give any weight the the JRC’s side?

On a related note, you may want to check out the article on the JRC’s sister school, Tobinworld. Looks slanted, right? What if I told you that the only positive story I managed to dig up on the place from an independent source was about that one time when they served their students ice cream? I didn’t include it in the article, because it really didn’t seem notable enough. So in short, these articles "look POV", but there is no clear way to improve them, which is probably why none of the people her who argue that they are POV have managed to do so. If there’s a positive story I missed from a reliable independent source, someone please post it here and I’ll admit I was wrong. Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This controversial topic flared up last year here and at WP:FT/N, with a chief player being Wikiman2718 [24][25] who has not edited since, except once to insert one of these GED images.[26] I therefore suspect there is some kind of coordination/puppetry going on here. Perhaps an admin could dig a little? Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not socking to edit while logged out, as I never at any point managed my accounts abusively. Going to an IP to avoid harassment is a perfectly legitimate use of multiple accounts. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say "accounts" (plural). How many do you have? It is kind of problematic to edit while logged out when it has the effect of avoiding scrutiny. Here we have another batch of WP:DRAMA around these articles, with you as the epicentre, and without my spotting it, it would not have been apparent that the issue here is an editor with a known history of problematic editing in this topic space. How many different IPs are "you"? At least 4 or 5 obviously since they all geolocate to the same place, but this makes it impossible to have a coherent conversation on Talk. I am thinking a TBAN may be in order to damp down this kind of disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edit from whatever IP I'm to be at, of course. There is nothing at all suspicious about using several IPs. But as you were one of the two editors that I went to IP to avoid harassment from (and my currunt IP is rangeblocked), I might as well just log in now. You characterize my editing as problematic, but there was no consensus to that effect and I said the same of you. Now if we would just return to the discussion at hand, we could resolve the relevant content disputes so that it can finally determine who is POV pushing here. I see several accusations of POV, but dispite edits like this, none of my detractors seem to be able to write a better article than I have. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the previous ANI, after levelling charges of "harassment" at two editors (one of them me), and requesting time to make your case, you wrote "I promise that I will not make any further edits to the encyclopedia until this issue is resolved". But you've broken that promise and have returned to edit covertly using multiple IPs. Ironically, I would have been completely unaware of this thread had you not pinged me with the outright lie that I have "expressed sympathy" for the view that autism is caused by "infused head growths". Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) I did not mean to suggest that you had expressed sympathy for the point of view that autism is caused by and infused head growth. I suggested that you had expressed sympathy for the view that discrete trial training has more than weak evidence behind it. Is this not true? I pinged all editors that had been canvassed to, including you. 2) I have recently been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease (witch is exasperated by stress) and it was flaring up bad during that discussion. It is a very serious disease wich causes me a lot of pain, so I just decided to ghost rather than continue in that stressful situation. I had thought that I would give up editing, but about six months later when it was under control I decided to return as an IP. I made no effort to conceal my connection with this account, and never at any time pretended to be multiple users. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "expressed sympathy" for any of the viewpoints you mention, but I have surely offered my opinion on what is best supported by sources. That is part of what we are here for. As to how problematic your "ghosting" is, I will leave others to comment. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone missed the last section, I am the IP that this thread was filed against (I am logged in now). At the heart of this issue is a content dispute on Ivar Lovaas and Discrete trial training. The content dispute may be found (and participated in) at Talk:Ole Ivar Lovaas#New changes by User:ATC, Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness, and Talk:Discrete trial training#Aversives. If you look at these pages you will see that the OP (User:ATC) refuses to adequately communicate, refuses to obey medical sourcing guidelines, and maintains his preferred versions of the articles through sheer force, reverting any attempt to reinstate neutrality. This diff shows one such revert, in which he refers to my edit as "vandalism". Rather than engaging in open discussion he has stonewalled, canvassed, and tried to get me banned. This behavior is extremely tendentious, and I fail to see how I can resolve this dispute without the need for outside intervention. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiman2718, Wikipedia has a strong immune system, without which we'd be drowning in nonsense. Occasionally, it over-corrects, particularly when dealing with logged-out editors, or new accounts who focus on righting great wrongs or promoting one point of view. You seem to me to be exactly the kind of editor we should nurture, so please be aware of the immune system. Don't do anything to make it suspicious. If in doubt, go to talk. Don't edit war or edit logged out without telling people it's you. If the talk page doesn't yield results, there are noticeboards where you can ask for help, e.g. WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN. Come here only as a last(ish) resort. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that advice. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• New development: I have used another boomerang at SPI to argue that the OP used a sleeper account to report on me for socking. The present content dispute (and the OPs related behavior) is being used as evidence. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just found some really damning evidence that links the OP to the sleeper sock that reported me (viewable at the SPI link I just posted). I do have to wonder why this entire enormous thread was directed at me when the OP's editing was so obviously disruptive. Throughout this whole ordeal, not one person has bothered to investigate my claims, and as a result the OP has been allowed to harass me for a week. But I am not here to live in the past. The OP's disruption is still ongoing, so I would appreciate if an admin would take action fast. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now that the SPI has been closed with the finding that the accounts were unrelated,[27] it turns out the "week of harassment" has been perpetrated more by Wikiman2718, who has made a number of WP:PAs in prosecuting their case,[28] than by any other editor here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who didn't read the thread, the complaint was filed by as seven year old sleeper sock that activated five days ago (right in the middle of my dispute with ATC) who's username was a pun on ATC. ATC's block log contains multiple blocks for socking. Are you telling me that this is all a coincidence? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HOLES. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have also accused you of harassment (and will make that case when this is over) I would appreciate if you would let others weigh in. It look to me as though ATC has a special status in this community that puts him beyond scrutiny. As a result, he has been allowed to continue in his disruption unchecked. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get involved in this dispute, but something needs to be stated about this: If you look at these pages you will see that the OP (User:ATC) refuses to adequately communicate, refuses to obey medical sourcing guidelines, and maintains his preferred versions of the articles through sheer force, reverting any attempt to reinstate neutrality. I have been mentoring ATC for over a decade, and without saying more, I think you need to AGF a bit here. ATC's communication skills and editing ability have grown enormously over the years I have mentored them, and I am quite proud of them. They are not a bad faith editor, and they respond to reason. I have not investigated the rest of this matter, other than offering my views on the content on the article talk page. I went to their talk page to welcome Wikiman2718 as what I thought was a new account, when I realized this was at ANI, after I responded on article talk.[29] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I never meant to get involved in this, I am a mostly casual user that didn't really use this account to make a few edits (which were deleted a few years back). I filed the SPI because I saw that he didn't seem to be apologetic about not logging in, just from reading this thread. However, can Wikipedia somehow block personal attacks from User:Wikiman2718 against me? His mockery of me in several posts is creeping me out. He is even going after me on an unrelated thread User_talk:DGG#Significance_of_Media_Coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders

Atdevel (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are a personal attack. @Wikiman2718:, you need to either file an SPI or withdraw that accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: He won't stop making that claim, apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=prev&oldid=976397787

He just made it now. It's like that old joke, "George Washington and George Irving must be related" Atdevel (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Wikiman for these persistent accusations. If it continues, they need to be blocked by an admin. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: He did it again! He is asking me to verify IP addresses that I edited on from a while back, which makes me feel uncomfortable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atdevel&diff=prev&oldid=976422649 Atdevel (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: he is continuing with his attacks after being warned https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAtdevel&type=revision&diff=976431550&oldid=976422649 Atdevel (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just in case anyone missed the big event, ATdevel has retired. But given what just happened here, and this user's relevance to the still-open discussion, I still feel the need to justify my claims that this user was here for the purpose of disruption. I recently happened across some off-wiki evidence that is relevant and I'm not sure what the right procedure is here. Could a friendly admin help me out? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Nozoz aside, I'm concerned that we have an admin "explaining" [30] that DS alerts are issued

when we see that a user is doing something wrong ... You managed to get three alerts, for three different areas, which means that for whatever reason you are attracted to highly controversial areas, and your editing there is not ideal. I have seen this editing pattern a lot, though you are the first person I see with three Ds alerts at the same talk page, just one after another. My message is that unless you start editing very carefully (something you are not currently doing) or move to uncontroversial areas your account is likely to be blocked.

The idea that DS alerts are badges of shame, or demerits counting up to a block, reflects a complete misunderstanding of their function. Perhaps there should be a "DS Alert Alert" we can use to remind admins what DS alerts actually are and what they're actually for. EEng 03:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This issue separate from Nozoz, yeah, someone who was completely unfamiliar with me could theoretically leave me a DS notification in good faith. Heck, if a new user walks into a DS area, goes to the talk page, and says "I have this source from (Reuters, Oxford UP, something else equally trustworthy) that says (proper and relevant quotation that should be summarized in the article), can this be added to the article?" we should still leave them a DS alert. That's why Template:Alert says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." I'm leaving a note (and trout) for Ymblanter. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, do not take issues with Nozoz aside. I give several dozens of DS alerts per year, and in the vast majority of cases I do not even need to provide any explanation, I just expect users to take a note that they must be careful in editing the area. However, in some cases I see serious misconduct, and sometimes even potential that a user soon will be presented to WP:AE when a prior alert is mandatory. In this case, I saw serious misconduct which prompted me to give an alert, and I discovered that they already have two prior alerts in different topic given for even more serious misconduct as well. And the user had just over 100edits. I am not at all surprised that they were indefblocked before they became extended confirmed. May be the situation could have been handled slightly better, but I am afraid the outcome would still be the same, since in retrospect we see that all their edits are about whitewashing RT using bad sources or misrepresenting the sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to ignore the point. Can you please (a) acknowledge that (contrary to what you said in your post quoted above) the fact that an editor has received a DS alert, or several DS alerts, or several DS alerts in a row, is not evidence of misconduct; and (b) assure the community that you'll stop saying such things? This shouldn't be hard. EEng 13:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(a) By itself, a number of DS alerts is not an evidence of misconduct. However, in this case all Ds alerts have been given for misconduct. (b) this is a question "have you stopped beating your wife". I am not going to stop calling misconduct misconduct. Sorry to disappoint you.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a beating-your-wife question, because you are being asked to stop doing something you clearly have been doing. Now yes or no: Will acknowledge that you will stop issuing the false statements you made in your post quoted at the start of this subthread? This is a formal request per WP:ADMINACCT. EEng 14:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made false statements. I actually never lie, though I remember it was for you last time impossible to believe. I said that behavior of that user is disruptive, and we have a chance to check that I was right, even if the form I used was possibly not optimal. I am not sure what is difficult here to understand. For the rest, I am afraid, you will have to go to ArbCom if you believe that my behavior is contrary to ADMINACCT.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the problem. This can be (and probably was) interpreted that DS alerts are given for serious misconduct. Whereas this user has performed reasonably serious misconduct, I promise to be more careful choosing the wording in the future.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was half expecting you to say that you not only never lie but that you're incapable of error as well. There's hope for you yet. EEng 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, you once accused me of joining a mob that existed only to provoke you into a rage, so you could then get dragged to ArbCom. That's not just a deliberate falsehood, but tinfoil hat nutso. Reyk _YO! 07:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did join the mob, and this is factual. I try to never make statements on motivations of other people, and I do not know what your motivations were. May be you genuinely thought that I have no clue on the Wikipedia policies and my long-term behavior was absolutely inappropriate. I apologize if what I said then sounded like I made some conclusions about your motivations. We also know by now that the mob was directly related to WP:FRAM, which of course does not excuse my overreaction on several occasions. I also hope that I learned from that situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Aww c'mon let's be honest. "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" is a lie. 99% of the time when an editor gives another editor a DS alert, it's immediately following something the recipient did that the poster didn't like. Getting a DS alert, contrary to the notice, does in fact imply that there are issues with your contributions to date. The template notice ought to be updated to describe actual practice. It should say "I am leaving you this notice so that if you repeat your behavior, you can be more easily sanctioned." The proof? An editor can inform or remind another editor of the existence or import of DS with a normal, non-template message. That makes the editor aware of DS without fulfilling the actual DS awareness requirement. The only reason to make someone aware of DS using the template is to fulfill the awareness requirement, and the only reason to do it that way instead of with a regular message is to clear the way for future sanctions. Lev!vich 14:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  An editor can inform or remind another editor of the existence or import of DS with a normal, non-template message – I don't believe that's true, actually. IIRC, to have effect a DS alert must be in the exact form of the template, without modification (though you can append other stuff after it). EEng 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's my point exactly: the only reason to use the template is "to have effect", i.e., to trigger the awareness criteria that makes the editor subject to DS, i.e. to pave the way for future sanctions. If we wanted to inform someone without paving the way for future sanctions, we would say "Hey, FYI, this article is under WP:ACDS" (which many editors do write to each other), rather than go through the cumbersome process of posting a DS template (which requires checking three places for prior awareness; even the script requires running twice as a failsafe measure). Very few editors will go to that trouble unless there's disruption. Lev!vich 17:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ^{[citation needed]} Probably 75% of the time I've given alerts I have no clear opinion on the editor's editing, and 95% of the time it's not in response to any particular edit. I haven't given that many warnings, but from what I've seen there are a large number of editors like me who do give alerts regularly to editors when they seem them active in an area or article, especially an area that has had significant problems recently (to be clear, an area here doesn't mean the whole DS area but some more limited area of the encyclopaedia, of one article). There are also a number of times when someone comes to ANI or AN and complains about an editor who is editing in a DS area. Rather than wasting time working out if anyone did anything wrong, it's hardly uncommon to simply DS alert the editor (and probably the complainer if they aren't aware), and tell the people concerned to use the discretionary sanctions process in future if needed. I've also seen this happen elsewhere. Note that this is distinct from what you're saying. Some editor may think they need to be sanctioned in the future, but it's not the editor actually giving the alert. The editor who thinks they need to be sanctioned may be completely wrong, the point is it doesn't and shouldn't matter, there's no point wasting time working out if they do. I've also remarked before that IMO the best DS alerts are given by editors who agree with an editor's edits. I'm not denying that some editors do give them because they disagree with an editor's edits and think they may need to be sanctioned in the future, but you said 99% which is an extreme number. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Usually what I do is I come across some disruptive editing on a given page, look at the page history, and give an alert to everyone involved on that page. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a great practice. EEng 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe we should update the template to "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. It might be the other editor. ;-) Lev!vich 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Tough but fair. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  When I have given the notices, it's either been to a relatively new account that I think may not be aware of the standards on DS articles, or it's a way of reminding an experienced editor to stay calm and reflect on recent engagements -- not necessarily with me. But even in the second case, the editor placing the notice is not signalling Admin disapproval or a pending sanction, just that editor's personal concern. And some Admins routinely place the notices on a large number of user talk pages when they see a new user in one of the topic areas. Short of automated messages listing all DS and GS topic areas, updated annually by a bot, I don't see any better way to do it. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Non admin here. For the record, every instance in which I've been "notified" of DS in a topic area it never felt like useful information. It felt like a warning. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Think of it as an informative warning. EEng 13:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's definitely a warning, just not one that assumes any wrongdoing on your part. The same way that you might see a shark warning at a beach, to ensure you know what you might be getting into before you head out into the water. Grandpallama (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A DS template is not at all like warning people of sharks or other dangers. DS sanctions can only be applied to editors who have been made aware of DS, e.g. with a template message. Thus the message doesn't warn of a danger, it creates the danger. If sharks only attacked people who had received a warning first, then no one would warn people about sharks. Lev!vich 20:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I can think of a few people, actually. EEng 08:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich: That is perhaps the best example of your work I have seen on all of these many notice boards. A classic. Mistaken, but a perfectly stated false analogy 👌😎 SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, in what way is it mistaken? EEng 08:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  EEng, If sharks only attacked people who had received a warning first, then no one would warn people about sharks People wouldn't issue warnings, but sharks would have an interest in warning people that they wanted to attack. Vexations (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Very clever, Vexations, but sharks don't count for the purposes of "no one", because sharks aren't people (though I've known some people who are sharks). EEng 15:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am genuinely puzzled and would appreciate an explanation of what you meant. EEng 05:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Pretty much. Grandpallama (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I comment because I routinely issue DS alerts. Since it's not standard procedure to all send them at the initial welcome message, it's when editors edit the relevant area that they tend to get noticed and notified. Because those notes are important to be able to followup with WP:AE enforcement, it's not a coincidence that those who made controversial edits are more likely to receive them. But that information is really for everyone, a fact the DS/Alert text attempts to explain. I've recently issued one on my own talk page, since noone did and I became familiar with the related situation (in relation to the Falun Gong topic area, in this case). —PaleoNeonate – 07:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user W28394 has been involved in edit wars and is involved in disruptive editing on multiple articles. He has been edit warring and has reverted edits of multiple users such as User:Anupam, User:NavjotSR, User:Editorkamran. All of them have tried to engage with this user on the talk pages of the following articles but he keeps on reverting the information without even providing any references.

• Disruptive Changes and Edit Wars

Article : Khalji dynasty [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]]

Article : Jalal-ud-din Khalji [[35]] [[36]] [[37]]

Article:Hindkowans [[38]] [[39]] [[40]] [[41]]

• Warnings against this user:

[[42]] [[43]]

• Here he has accused me to be a Sockpuppet of User:Editorkamran

[[44]] [[45]]

Please look into this as he is removing big chunks of articles without even providing any credible source and is reverting all constructive edits. Kami2018 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening, unfortunately, I have to write on your talk page due to the petty targeting, complaining, and accusations initiated against me by Kami2018.

I have been accused of edit wars, disruptive editing, etc, for making factual and well sourced changes to articles. I have provided all required sources for every change I have made. You can find the reasoning and sources for them on the talk pages here [[46]],here [[47]] and here, [[48]].

Rather than engaging and replying on the talk pages, Kami2018 has resorted to flippant behavior and is trying to get me banned by various editors/moderators. Kami2018 has been obtrusively imposing his views on to others and has been warned against doing so by various users numerous times in the past as well. Thank you.

W28394 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to User:Kami2018 for pinging me here. From what I can see, several editors have reverted and/or opposed the changes of User:W28394 on the article about Hindkowans, including User:Kami2018, User:Editorkamran, User:Fylindfotberserk, and User:NavjotSR. As of now, there is a consensus on the talk page that opposes the revision suggested by User:W28394. Both User:Kami2018 and User:W28394 have commented on my talk page asking me to examine the situation and my recommendation has been for User:W28394 to self-revert and allow the talk page discussion to continue, rather than continue the behaviour of edit warring. Whether User:W28394 complies with WP:BRD and the current consensus should, in my opinion, play a role in the result achieved in this WP:ANI discussion concerning User:W28394. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• W28394 is WP:NOTHERE as evident from the diffs provided by Kami2018. I would support an indef block. NavjotSR (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:NavjotSR This user User:W28394 has been blocked for disruptive editing for 24 hrs and just after one day he has started carrying out disruptive edits as seen here [[49]] & [[50]] with two different users. I am not sure how to deal with this person anymore. Kami2018 (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A user operating from multiple IPs is persistently adding unsourced sister pairings variously involving Cary and Raleigh, North Carolina, USA and Salzburg, Austria. With roughly 60 edits spread across four IPs so far, the user has also on occasion improperly deleted other cities from the lists. I initially left edit notes indicating that I was reverting due to unsourced content, then escalated to talk page notices, but the multiple IPs have made things rather futile.

Involved IPs:

Involved pages:

All of the additions are unsupported by current lists of sister cities, including for Cary and Raleigh and in the membership directory of Sister Cities International. WildCowboy (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly impressed by the sources: do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Nevertheless, the prior list at had some sourcing, unlike the IP's efforts. I've partially blocked the /64 range from editing Raleigh, North Carolina indefinitely for now. On the slim chance that another IP is allocated the address and also wants to edit the Raleigh article (the IP does geolocate to Raleigh), I'm happy for an unblock with a convincing reason to happen without consulting me. --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, I found https://raleighnc.gov/raleigh-sister-cities which confirms the prior list and sources and looks like the authoritative site. I've instead partially blocked the IP from all five pages for 3 years for now. If they have genuine reasons to edit those pages, they will have to engage in talk somewhere first. Hopefully that fixes it. On the slim chance that another IP is allocated the address and genuinely wants to edit those articles (the IP does geolocate to Raleigh), I'm happy for an unblock with a convincing reason to happen without consulting me. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced your indefinite block to 3 months. Please don't do indefinite blocks on IP addresses, or block random IP addresses for years. Sometimes a residential cable ISP will allocate a /64 to a single customer for a very long time time, but you can not assume that it will last years. As a CheckUser who has done thousands of CU lookups and thousands of range blocks, I can tell you that this will cause unacceptable collateral damage. Partial blocks mitigate this, but they still need to be reasonable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had already reduced the indef to 3 years. While it's true that a residential cable ISP might reallocate that /64 to another customer, they will still have a much larger base set to reallocate than in the days of IPv4. The chances in most cases of the new customer getting that /64 also wanting to edit the Wikipedia article on exactly the same topic out of our 6 million articles will be so small as to be negligible, therefore there's much less chance of a problem when a partial block is used. In this case, though, the article affected was geographically local to the IP, so there's perhaps a higher likelihood that the new customer might want to edit it. Nevertheless, I think your reduction to 3 months is just kicking the can down the road. In 3 month's time, if the vandalism starts up again, will you be suggesting that this is a new vandal who just happened to be allocated the same IPv6 and just happened to edit the same article? Thought not. --RexxS (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone...much appreciated. Will keep an eye out for future edits from any additional IPs. WildCowboy (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new IP in the block is at it again, adding bogus sister city relationships on Cary, North Carolina, Munich, Würzburg, and Klosterneuburg.

--WildCowboy (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now Salzburg‎ as well. --WildCowboy (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also just noticed that seemingly all of the edits from this entire IP block (2606:A000:4508:A00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) are either making vandalism/hoax edits to city/region pages or editing pages for kids shows (which I haven't examined to see if those are legitimate or not). There are over 15 specific IPs involved in the geography-related vandalism dating back about six weeks, mostly involving bogus sister city pairings or changing pages for various European countries/regions to state that they are located in the United States. --WildCowboy (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(nac) From this DABfixers POV, ambiguous and unsourced sister city listings can be a real pest. I've seen several. Even if you have the will and ability to look at non-English WPs and to do multilingual searching, they can be impossible to confirm or to deny even from the towns' own websites. All one can do in first instance is WP:AGF and add {{disambiguation needed}} and {{citation needed}} tags, even if a link looks completely implausible. Whoever added it may have a source I failed to find. Narky Blert (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user is clearly trying to cause trouble, however, as all of the IPs on this block appear to be the same person and they're making other edits stating Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are in the southern United States, among other clearly incorrect edits. I've checked the official Sister Cities International directory, I've checked city/town websites, and I've found nothing to support any of their sister city claims. Sister city pairs are also typically of somewhat similar stature, so it makes little sense that a suburban town in North Carolina would be paired with major cities like Munich and Vienna. And the user refuses to engage on talk pages. --WildCowboy (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now using 98.122.148.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to engage in the same behavior. The IP has already had two blocks in the past six weeks. --WildCowboy (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it again today from the same IP. Can we get an admin to take another look and put some more blocks on this person? The 98.122.148.179 IP has been a continuing problem for weeks, as can be seen from the laundry list of warnings and two blocks. Thanks. --WildCowboy (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles about the Irish mythological characters Cú Chulainn and Fer Diad both contain a reference to the interpretation of their relationship as a sexual one. This is discussed in the critical literature and is cited in both articles. User:CreativeFlesh93 is persistently removing this reference from both articles, apparently because he doesn't like the cited book. He also keeps insisting that when I linked WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, that was me calling him a homophobe. I asked for help from the WP:Wikiproject Mythology, and got one revert by User:Enuui, but CreativeFlesh93 has continued his campaign. I can't maintain this alone without risking being called for edit warring or 3RR. Someone, please, lend a hand. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it was written by someone (who is not an expert in the field of Irish mythology or mythology in general) does not make it a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeFlesh93 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(nac) CF93's edit summary "Just because it is in a book does not make it accurate" (the book in question being an encyclopedia published by Cassell) and their comment here suggests that they may be unaware of WP:TRUTH. Narky Blert (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're presenting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint with WP:UNDUE weight, without explaining that it is not accepted by mainstream academia. And editwarring to include it in this unexplained unqualified state with the edit summary "revert arbitrary removal of sourced material". My removal wasn't arbitrary, I explained it in the edit summaries. On top of that you are forum shopping around the 'pedia (here and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology#Cú Chulainn and Ferdiad) begging for help so you don't get blocked for editwarring ("I don't want to get involved in an edit war or break 3RR, so somebody else please stop him.") instead of addressing the policy and sourcing issues brought up. Heiro 14:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H0llande. This user has been editing in line with his own POV, providing poor or no references, and harassing me. The user restored an edit by a banned user 1 (MixedButHumann) without any consensus on the talk page, where the user demonstrated a clear inability to edit Wikipedia properly, editing and revoking his own edit 24 times [51]. The user has repeatedly stated my perceived ethnicity is a driving factor in my edits 2 3 (the user falsely states I am an Assyrian when in fact I'm not), and argued I shouldn't edit any relevant articles. At Naum Faiq, the user has repeatedly removed sourced content with bare urls and poor references (4 5 6), and after an attempt at discussion on the talk page, the user continued to assert his own edit with no explanation or justification 7. At Shamoun Hanna Haydo, the user demonstrates a failure to understand WP:BURDEN and has repeatedly changed content to reflect his POV without providing sources (8 9 10), and again after a discussion at his talk page, the user asserted his own edit with no explanation or sources 11. The user changed content without providing references in line with his own POV elsewhere (12 13). The user has been warned three times this month, and twice in the past. Mugsalot (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Mugsalot, excuse me but where did I harass you or anyone? Can you redirect this, because I’m not aware of it. And I already did apology for mentioning your ethnicity (However it was never my intention to personal attack anyone, but rather to keep Wikipedia a neutral place without POV politics), but on you’re talk page you stated yourself you are an Assyrian, and I did not said that you shouldnt edit relevant articles, but rather that you are not neutral enough to join the discussion on the page about Arameans. I edited 2 articles today Shamoun Hanna Haydo and Naum Faiq in which I both redirected to a biography book about Shamoun his life and I redirected to Naum Faiq his own magazine, how are these sources not reliable to you?H0llande (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mugsalot: H0llande had already been warned by admin Drmies about those personal attacks on your ethnicity hours after they were posted. Has there been any new attacks since? And if you suspect a sock, you should've gone to WP:SPI first. That moves a lot faster than ANI. Jerm (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mugsalot: Yes, please do report at WP:SPI --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerm: As the user's above edit demonstrates, the user continues to baselessly assert that I'm Assyrian. Alongside the other edits I have pointed to, the user has continued to be disruptive (1 2), and has repeatedly restored poorly sourced/unsourced content. Mugsalot (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot You haven't introduced any new evidence that the user continues to mention your ethnicity. The two post linked in your report concerning your ethnicity was already dealt with by admin Drmies via a warning to H0llande. If you are confident that this user is a sock and have evidence, please file a report at SPI. As for sourcing, that needs to be taken to the articles talk page, not their user page. You can also start an WP:RfC if the discussion doesn't go anywhere. Jerm (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the unusual characters in this username: 𝗺𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲. This appears to be an abuse of the charcters from the Unicode block Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols. I've added some patterns at User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist to try to catch any repetition of this or similar ruses, but I'm surprised this wasn't caught at source by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or similar mechanisms. Does anyone know how this might have been achieved, and how we could stop it from happening again? -- The Anome (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the username through the filter logs, but I wasn't sure if the username would be considered disruptive. I'm still not sure if different characters are considered disruptive...like 𝕷𝖔𝖗𝖉 𝕺𝖋 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖉𝖔𝖜𝖘 𝖝𝖊𝖓? Jerm (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a homograph problem. Unlike names which are in Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese, Korean, or other non-Latin scripts, which are uncontroversial, this is a misuse of the Unicode standard to achieve decorative effects, at the cost of creating confusion. Depending on your local font set, it may be either difficult or impossible to tell the difference between "𝗺𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲" (using mathematical symbols) and "my mom is proud of me" (using the standard Latin alphabet). Just for one example, an internal search within Wikipedia for "my mom is proud of me", will not bring up any reference to that user, and the page search function of my web browser also fails to find the obfuscated name. And yes, this also applies to 𝕷𝖔𝖗𝖉 𝕺𝖋 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖉𝖔𝖜𝖘 𝖝𝖊𝖓. -- The Anome (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there policy that forbids alternative fonts? This is the English Wiki, and their usernames are still english. Typing their usernames though is just as difficult as typing a non-latin script username such as Hebrew or Arabic, but such usernames that use non-latin characters are still allowed. Jerm (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerm: It's disallowed by Wikipedia:Username_policy#Non-script_usernames, since these are symbols (albeit letterlike ones) — the third bullet point there prohibits "Symbols and characters that are on the block lists at Unicode symbols", and indeed, Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols is present in that list. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About a week and a half ago, I came across a number of edits by User:Soul Crusher where a number of redirects were created pointing to Cleopatra Records and yet are not mentioned in the target article. I expressed my concern on their talk page. After finding better targets for many, I nominated the rest of them for deletion at RfD (just ending as delete all). I also nominated the article for the compilation album Sin Factor, in which Soul Crusher created a number of other redirects to there simply because a band or band member without any other reference in Wikipedia had a track or was credited as a songwriter. The album's article as well as all those redirects have also been deleted. Unfortunately, it continues. I repeated my message upon the creation of There Is No Time, another compilation album along a number of new redirects for more non-notable bands pointing just to the album. I voiced my concerns again a few days later, but to no avail. Yesterday, they created three redirects to Pankow (German band) for being listed as songwriters for a track on the compilation Funky Alternatives Seven, although the trio aren't mentioned in the band's article. They have refused to communicate on their talk and have continued the practice (see Lee Popa and Max Edgin).

• I think Soul Crusher needs to refrain from creating these needless redirects for a simple mention as part of a track listing without additional information being available elsewhere.
• Even if a redirect is mentioned in the target article, I think Soul Crusher should stop creating links to each band member over and over when they simply redirect to the band's page (and is already linked itself as the recording artist in the same articles). For example, they created redirects for Gary Dassing and Dwayne Dassing to their band Mentallo and the Fixer, and in articles such as Centuries (EP), their names are linked in every instance despite the link to the band already existing in the intro and infobox already.
• I've also asked them to stop linking to countries under the "Release history" section of these articles per MOS:OVERLINK, but that request has been ignored as well.

There are other concerns as well, including the creation of many potentially non-notable topics and unchecked hyperlinks to disambiguation pages and unrelated articles about something else as tagged by a bot here in the article The Black Bible, which is how I began to notice the depth of these issues. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem here - redirects are appropriate.Soul Crusher (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This and this say otherwise, and this one is in progress. And part of the problem is you failed to discuss the issue when I brought it up to you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The track on Funky Alternatives Seven is by Pankow (Italian band), not Pankow (German band), it is not only about notability it's whether they redirect to a relevant article. Peter James (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see a problem here - redirects are appropriate." In Wikipedia:Redirect, one of the reasons listed for their deletion is "...and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.". Most of your recent redirects link to articles which either briefly mention the subjects, or in the case of Cleopatra Records, make no mention of them at all. This is rather problematic. Do you see these as redirects with possibilities of eventual expansion? Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently ignoring the issues presented here because they don't view it as a problem, Soul Crusher created Markleford Friedman pointing to a band's article in which the name is never mentioned. The reason? Because Friedman is listed as a songwriter for a track by the band that is featured on the barely, if at all, notable compilation The Best of Mind/Body: Electro-Industrial Music From the Internet, that was also just created. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here since I think I toed the line of admin discretion and thought that there are some issues that needed community addressing. I blocked Kaleodu for 31 hours after they continuously disruptively tagged articles with notability tags in spite of being asked to stop. They were addressed by me and UW Dawgs who opened up a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Notability in NFL player articles where they refused to communicate. I felt they displayed IDHT behaviour and it was becoming disruptive. If the community decides that I was wrong, I completely accept their admonishing and will unblock.

I am bringing this here because I am also concerned about several of their image uploads. They're asserting PD US but sourcing to unofficial sources. This likely needs a deeper look and perhaps a longer block. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleodu might be overzealous, but some of their recent notability tags seem reasonable to me. Joy Golden,for example, is a stub article on an advertiser. Most of the sources are biographical background, and there is actually only a single mention of her career. Other articles Kaleodu tagged for notability are also stubs.:

• George Mira Jr.'s entire college football career is summarized in a single paragraph
• Pierre Champoux's article contains a single line,
• Bob Fisher (tight end) is two-lines long and mentions a professional career which lasted less than two years. Dimadick (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dimadick That's fair but they were asked to either add "a more references needed" tag or take it to AfD, which they refused to acknowledge. I blocked because I felt their tagging and IDHT behaviour was becoming disruptive. For example, they tagged James Melka but I easily expanded it 1K bytes and added two in-depth articles. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been told in the past that rather than take articles to AfD, I should tag them with notability tags. I still have no idea what it is the community expects an editor to do with an article that they think is not notable but that meets the relevant SNG, i.e. the old "meets GNG but not SNG". My current practice is to ignore it. Lev!vich 21:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User JayBee00 and I have been engaged in a content dispute discussion on Talk:Australian Unemployed Workers' Union regarding the article's neutrality (or lack thereof) over a number of days.

The user removed a neutrality dispute template that I had added to the article in conjunction with my discussion on the talk page, on two occasions (1st instance, 2nd instance). However, after recognising that the back-and-forth discussion was not going anywhere I opened the content dispute to a request for comment using the RfC template. The user has also repeatedly removed this template (1st instance, 2nd instance) on their own terms stating that they themselves believe that the discussion is over, when it clearly isn't and the dispute is ongoing. I was reluctant to post here which is why I sought other avenues first (including discussing the user's conduct on their talk page), however the user has specifically obstructed me from pursuing mediation in deleting my edits.

Their constant editing of old comments which frustrates the utility of the discussion, blanking of my comments, as well as commentary that has effectively tried to shut down discussion completely has essentially broken the discussion I was attempting to hold. Despite all my previous attempts to engage the user in good faith, both on their talk page and the article's talk page, they have sought to prevent any further discussion on the matter made in an effort to improve the quality of the article.

Any advice or assistance in this incident would be much appreciated. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has claimed multiple IPs and multiple users are disputing the neutrality of the article, in fact the only editors present were the IP and myself discussing back and forth in that "Talk" page as has been the case since August 28th, no other registered users, no other IPs. The IP appears to still be claiming I have blanked "multiple" comments of his, this is simply not true. I did erroneously blank one (not more than one as he claims) of his comments during the course of all this and apologised for that within the "Talk" page. As a relatively new Wikipedia user, I have made many posts I've subsequently needed to fix up to improve wording (including this one :( ), I certainly have had no malicious intent in doing so.

The neutrality template placed on the article by the IP was done unilaterally, repeatedly so by him without any other user supporting this as such, no prior explanation by the IP within the "Talk" page about this template being inserted, no attempt to make any further argument about article neutrality for two days prior to his actions in that regard, he made no further response after I replied to his post on that day. Therefore I believe it was not appropriate for him to seek to insert that neutrality template, unilaterally and spontaneously as he did so, so I removed the template as per Wikipedia policy as detailed on the Maintenance template removal page, since there was no clear basis for the template challenging article neutrality and no explanation given. I explained precisely why I removed the template, through a note in edit history on the article and through a post within the ("Talk" page which I posted initially just after he sought to unilaterally insert that template, and have subsequently updated, which the IP has never sought to respond to.

The IP subsequently sought to lodge a RfC about "neutrality of article, edits and potential edit-warring", reliant heavily on claims he has made which were shown to be provably not true, as I detailed very substantively within "Talk". I believe consensus isn't going to be reached, the IP has stated he does not wish to prolong what he describes as being unproductive debate, I also believe further discussion in that regard is not likely to be helpful. Therefore as per Wikipedia policy described on the Request for comment page, and I had been the only active Wikipedia registered user within that "Talk" page for a few days, I removed the {{rfc}} template within the "Talk" page, and made another post within "Talk" explaining what I see as the basis for my actions, where I also directly quoted excerpts from the Request for comment page, again the IP has responded to neither of those posts.

The discussion between he & I appears conclusively ended. It was clear consensus was not reached and would not be. The IP said he did not wish to prolong debate. I believe I demonstrated within "Talk" and in accordance with Wikipedia policy as I referenced there, that the original unilateral insertion of an RfC was not justified to begin with, nor was the unilateral attempt to insert a neutrality template into the article. JayBee00 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any external observer will see from the record on both Jaybee00's talk page and the disputed article's talk page that many of their claims are untrue (although it may be difficult to parse through the sheer quantity of edits and reversions made by the user).

1. It is plainly evident that another IP and another user have expressed concerns regarding neutrality on the talk page, not to mention the article being written by someone who acknowledged a COI with them being a member of the organisation which the article describes.
2. You did not 'erroneously' blank my comment. You consciously justified removing it in your edit summary
3. The neutrality template I placed was accompanied by discussion of the issue on the talk page. Another user on the talk page raised similar concerns.
4. Due to the ongoing discussion without establishing consensus I placed the RfC template in an effort to seek mediation on the issue. Your deciding that consensus won't be reached is not reason to remove another editor's request for comment.
5. I stated that I did not want to prolong fruitless or unproductive debate which was why I sought the comment of an external observer. This was clearly never an invitation for you to delete my template and consider for yourself the matter to be closed.
6. Anyone will see that I responded to your posts on your talk page, to state that I did not respond is false. Bludgeoning of the issue on your part forced me to resort to the ANI as you dismissed my discussion and concerns outright.
7. Taking it upon yourself to decide that the discussion has 'conclusively ended' is frivolous considering that we have arrived to this point. Denying that there is an issue does not confirm the absence of one.

With those points addressed I will not comment further until a response from the noticeboard is posted. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has frustratingly sought to gainsay in response to some posts within "Talk", repeating claims he previously made which I have already demonstrated are not true, not correct, without providing further meaningful substantive argument, still ignoring at least some posts made by me in "Talk". He did not post any discussion about the neutrality template he sought to insert prior to inserting it into the article, hence no explanation given, nor any discussion prior to that unilateral action by him, no consensus to support it.

It has been shown multiple times that there was no clear basis for the template challenging article neutrality, and there was no-one else who called for that template to be inserted. The other user on the "Talk" page he refers to who sought to query neutrality, over three days previously, was responsible for previously attempting to insert highly questionable non-NPOV poorly sourced content into the article, Moreover as I stated before, the IP has not sought to make any further argument on that subject in two days prior to his taking that action unilaterally as he did so.

He claims another IP has expressed concerns about neutrality. In fact, I believe that IP showed his clear disagreement with this claim being made about neutrality. The IP here certainly has absolutely no possible remote scintilla of a basis to claim otherwise, that's for sure.

I was wrong to remove the one comment I did remove from the IP (at least it seems like he's no longer seeking to claim more than one comment was blanked). And I apologised for this in "Talk" well before now, though the IP is not acknowledging this :(

And yes, the last two posts I have made in "Talk", the updated one towards the top of the "Talk" page stating why the neutrality template was removed, to which I subsequently further added information as to why the RfC was removed, and also one lower down on the "Talk" page where I went further into why I believe it was justifiable to remove the RfC. The IP has responded to neither. JayBee00 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller, RolandR, Larry Hockett, Richard3120, and Esowteric:

New user off to a bad start of ignoring repeated warnings on the same set of issues. A brief block may be needed to emphasize that the warnings mean something.

These ([61],[62],[63],[64],[65]) are some of the edits that have prompted user talk messages and warnings. Click "Next edit" on any to see the reverter's summary, or just look on User talk:Zackomode. Essentially, the pattern is one of blindly replacing certain words and phrases with the user's preferred word or phrase, even when this breaks grammar, breaks wikilinks, introduces inaccuracy, or changes a direct quote. The user's editing frequency seems to be increasing, so this strikes me as a good time to make an impression, and hopefully save a lot of later cleanup effort. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 16:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly warned this user, over behaviour such as needlessly changing from British to American English,[66][67][68] unnecessary fiddly edits,[69][70][71][72] and particularly changing direct quotations to match their own preferred usage.[73][74][75][76][77]. They have even edited my comments on their talk page.[78] I have left them a personal message explaining the problem with their edits,[79] as well as several templated warnings. But this does not seem to have made any impression, and the editor continues regardless with their disruptive, unhelpful and frequently outright erroneous edits. I think that the editor needs a short block as a warning, with a warning that continuing in this way could lead to the permanent withdrawal of their editing privileges. RolandR (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swpb's final example above, the J.K. Rowling edit, is a good example of the two biggest problems with this user's edits. I can live with the addition of serial/Oxford commas all over the place, even if their addition is unnecessary and breaks the flow of the prose in places. But direct quotations should never be changed, even if the spelling or grammar was incorrect in the first place. And more troubling is the changing of words which then make no sense in the context of the sentence – in the J.K. Rowling article it's the change of the noun "a wait" to the verb "await". There's another example here where in the "Critical reception" section "with in" was changed to "within" which makes no grammatical sense in the context. I don't know whether the user just has poor grammar (in which case WP:CIR applies), or if they are running the article through an automatic spelling/grammar checker and making the corrections suggested by the program... if so, this is exactly why the use of machine translators to translate articles from other languages is discouraged on Wikipedia, because computer programs are not infallible. Richard3120 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the above. I do think there can be legitimate fixes applied to direct quotes (per MOS:PMC) to correct errors, but rather than correcting errors in such quotes, this user is simply swapping out words to match his own preferences.

This edit concerns me. To me, it defies logic to hold out a preference for American English over Australian English on an article titled Culture of Australia - especially after having received a user talk page warning related to national varieties of English a week earlier. Because Zackomode doesn't use talk pages and rarely uses edit summaries, we are left without an understanding of how to best help him with these issues. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Maybe a short-term block would be appropriate, so that the user's attention is drawn to the issue. Then, if they choose to appeal, that may provide an opening for constructive dialogue? Esowteric+Talk 15:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pasdecomplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Karmapa controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ANI thread from June 2020 that mentions Pasdecomplot (some editors had complained that Pasdecomplot was refusing to indent their posts on Talk)

Incorrectly reported ([[80]]) as WP:VANDAL yesterday.

Reporting WP:DE by Pasdecomplot on Karmapa Controversy.

The Karmapa Controversy has been labeled as having "multiple issues" including WP:PSTS and possible WP:OR, and recent attempts to remove WP:OR were recently wiped way by Pasdecomplot, who made upwards of a 100 edits from August 29 to 31. Many of them are seemingly innocuous, but sandwiched in between are WP:OR, WP:SPS and non-WP:NPOV violating edits.

Pasdecomplot comments on the article's talk page have been verbose, confusing (advocating against the use of books as WP:RS--"removal of most internet-based RS in favor of books is quite curious, since no one else can check RS") and times lacking WP:CIV ("sorry to be blunt, but the whole paragraph reeks of Chinese state disinformation;"..."Sophisticated sockpuppet or what? Doesn't know what a 'pink floyd' is either."). The number of changes along with the degree to which WP:NPOV has been affected goes beyond a WP:DR and necessitates that an administrator to step in and additionally a WP:RBK is being requested as well.

Here are the diff links (August 29-31 changes) along with text you can copy/paste to search each diff page.

Links by category

WP:OR: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975870847 ("the majority of lamas and Karma Kagyu Sangha also agree") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975776585 ("He had claimed for years that he was the Karmapa.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975775211 ("for the secret interview of Trinley Thaye Dorje sometime after 1988, and two other lamas that eventually helped Trinley Thaye Dorje to arrive in India for his enthronement in 1994. Sources are unclear as to why the Sharmapa waited to reveal his selection.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975769086 ("lead regent") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975767647 ("Possibly referring to the controversy"; reference doesn't support; later cites WP:SPS) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975767074 ("The date at which the Sharmapa announced his preferred Karmapa is unclear.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975758893 ("his cousin Topga Yugyal, an unnamed person as the Sharmapa's source)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975745071 (The Nyingma school has always been non-political.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975884558 ("loses India's support") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975784756 ("Tai Situ Rinpoche became the lead member of the regents") WP:SPS; website appears legitimate (i.e. org.nz address) but is a repository of self-published articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975966021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975767647 Additional references used by Enlightened Heart, Notes: #44 WP:NPOV: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975715194 (changing meaning of sentence; "The 10th Sharmapa had been accused of instigating a war with Nepal) according to members of the Karma Kagyu lineage.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975891010 (just copying and pasting chunks from an article) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975888700 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975714124 (subtle edit to change wiki link which would benefit reader / Rangjung Rigpe Dorje, 16th Karmapa#Controversy and Recognition as Karmapa) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975769086 (subtlety changing order of individuals listed) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975756066 (subtlety removing that Shamar Rinpoche identified TTD) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975720207 (subtle "Authority" to "Collaboration" change affects section meaning) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975716884 Compare introduction before editing to after (intro has since been reverted): Before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&oldid=975115850 After: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&oldid=975969026 WP:AOBF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975786453 (subtle edit changing meaning) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975745071 (subtle edit changing meaning) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975716884 (unnecessary removal of wiki link) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=975127649&oldid=975115850 (introducing grammatical error into lead sentence of article and not willing to correct) WP:MTAU: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975782227 (parinirvana instead of death) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975772301 (parinirvana instead of death) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975239020 (reader will not understand what "Buktham Letter" is; ignored on talk page)

Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot was also sanctioned for WP:DE earlier this year:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pasdecomplot&oldid=965318307#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pasdecomplot&oldid=963877925#Discretionary_sanctions_alert

Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RamRaghubn (talk · contribs)

RamRaghubn is a fairly recent editor who's editing various India related articles and run into some disputes. One of those articles is Ayurveda which has gotten a lot of interest of late, resulting in WP:ECP being put on the article on August 26th. The next day, RamRaghubn goes on a rather impressive welcoming spree, over 200 welcome message by a rough count. They then got blocked for running a bot script and after the block, went back to welcoming people. Amazingly, that put them over the 500 edits to get the extended confirmed user access level. Shortly after, they started editing the Ayurveda article. I left them a note about gaming the system and they responded that everything was in good faith. I'm finding that extremely hard to believe, as when they tried to get unblocked, they were just going through the user create log. I'd like for this to be reviewed and their extended confirmed access level removed until they demonstrate better understanding of Wikipedia policies around sourcing and WP:NPOV. Ravensfire (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:PBPOL could be another option. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not they were using a script (though at ~5 edits/min, they were either using a script or copy-pasting the welcome message as fast as they could), I entirely agree that the point of this welcoming exercise was to gain extended-confirmed. I had my suspicions that gaining EC was the goal from the start, but this pretty much confirms it (indeed, as far as I can tell this was edit #501, and that's a blue lock on the article). As such, I have revoked their EC perm due to the blatant and bad-faith gaming. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I know where can I approach for arbitration, if not here ? To quote from policies "On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view." As a volunteer to Wikipedia project, I have equal rights as you are. I really don't get how you judged that I am not aware of the Wikipedia policies ? Second aspect, I have repeated earlier as well that my edits were never using a script or bot and was performing the changes manually after verifying whether the users were actually making any contributions or not. I never knew that welcoming users is illegal. RamRaghubn (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RamRaghubn, you were obviously gaming the system to gain ECP status, and that behavior is not permitted. Period. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User was blocked 29 September 2019 for disruption at beauty pageant articles. Now they have deleted AfD notice before debate has closed [81]. They received a bot warning for same behavior in 2019 [82]

Frankly, I'm tired of giving this individual warnings and bringing them to this noticeboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(only half joking) Can we just get community GS on beauty pageants already? We've got pro wrestling as a precedent... GeneralNotability (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability, delete the lot. Seriously. The 1970s are over. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the editor a 72 hour block for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would it be possible for an editor with some kind of authority to speak to User:Sankura in order to stop his unprovoked harassment against me? Looking over his contributions and editorial remarks, this user appears to regularly make offensive remarks and personal attacks against other editors. For my part, I have attempted to reach a compromise with them in good faith, but Sankura refuses to, even to the extent of repeatedly removing my requests for third party arbitration. His abusive language towards me and others is uncalled for and am at a loss as to how it was provoked. However, if my behavior in this dispute also merits some kind of disciplining, then I will respect that and fully abide by any actions decided upon. Thank you. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their userpage suggests that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Goose^(Talk!) 23:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean they're arrogant and insulting and combative, perhaps to a degree incompatible with being a Wikipedia editor—I don't know, I've only looked at a few dozen edits—but that user page explicitly says "I plan to do what I can to stem the decline [of Wikipedia articles]"... being critical of Wikipedia, even extremely critical, isn't of itself a sign that someone is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 23:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user's page tracked their work to fix a common grammar error. If that suggests to you that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia, I think that is extremely troubling. Perhaps you looked at the wrong user page. 109.144.19.43 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sankura has only been around a few months, so this type of behavior isn't really surprising since Sankura is a new editor. @Sankura: Please remain WP:CIVIL. Jerm (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:CurryTime7-24 undid my work on improving the lead section of List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich, replacing some sensible content with "This is a list of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich".[83] Since then, they have repeatedly lied about my edit, and slandered me and my work on a variety of forums. And here they go again. Looks like they have managed to encourage someone else to start slandering me.

I fixed more than eight hundred instances of incorrect grammar over the last few weeks. As a result of this lying editor and his incessant slandering, I'm not going to waste any more time doing that. Sankura (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has been given final warning for personal attacks, pointed to WP:NLT, and asked to remove all accusations of slander. User reverted talk page post warning. Meters (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked as sock by user: NinjaRobotPirate Meters (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly surprising that someone who displays obsessively dogmatic behavior will sock repeatedly. I feel sorry for people like that but their disruption cannot be tolerated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JMRAMOS0109 has had a long history of adding huge chunks of texts into articles without a single source (or a source or two, which does not back up the bulk of the content), or moving articles without previous discussion (generally forced English translations of names). Likely long-term violation of WP:OR, but to an extent that a good percentage of articles on WP:MILHIST is probably affected with entire unsourced, low-importance sections. That and unattributed copying within Wikipedia.

As an example, just within the second half of August and not all: [84],[85],[86],[87],[88] predominantly on military parades, standards and bands, occasionally units.

The user has been warned regarding every now and then in their talk page since as early as 2011. Within just the last 6 months or so, they have been warned regarding either lack of sourcing or copying by five different users. They really should know better to add sources by now, and yet they still add thousands of bytes of unsourced claims per day.

Either they have to start adding sources, or they should be removed from the project in order to prevent the addition of unverifiable sources in such large amounts. Juxlos (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Editor interaction: [89]
• Grufo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 39.37.150.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(note: I have included 2 partial snippets, please read the entire argument on the talk page for full context).

On a user's talk page currently there is an ongoing argument that started with Vice_regent alleging that Grufo was WP:STALK'ing them:

I notice you have restarted WP:STALK-ing me. Please stop. We've been over this before (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Hounding).[90]

To which Grufo then responded:

Vice regent, if you believe that my any of my edits were not aimed at improving Wikipedia constructively or against destructive edits (removals or POV-pushing, from you or anyone else), but I rather wanted to cause “irritation, annoyance, or distress” to you in particular, please do come forward. sent by Grufo.

Multiple other comments were made[91] which then eventually attracted the involvement of 39.37.150.110 which then further escalated the situation, primarily starting an argument between the anon user and Grufo. This also appears to not be the first dispute between Vice_regent and Grufo that has resulted in ANI, highlighting the necessary for intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cairo2k18 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't looking to bring this to ANI, the above was an attempt by me to resolve this on the user's talk page. The background is that Grufo has a history of following me around (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Hounding) and this week they once again reverted me[92][93] on two articles they'd never edited before. I also pointed out that >90% of Grufo's 520 edits in the month of August were spent in disputes with me (each one of which Grufo followed me to).VR _talk 14:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, to be fair you didn't really say much other than that, just the anon user and Grufo started being a bit unfriendly. Cairo2k18 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Za-ari-masen (talk · contribs) is removing citations [94] and cited texts [95]. A number of editors have tried to WP:GF to engage with him on various POV pushing where he is in the minority of one, but he seems impervious to all arguments. [Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system] He will reject sources on one pretext or the other if they do not align with his POV. [96]. This behavior has been persistent. Chaipau (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chaipau and the other user (Msasag) are simply misrepresenting the sources at multiple articles in what seems to be an ethnic POV pushing. The case here is Rangpuri language and Bengali-Assamese languages. The most widely used source for linguistic articles on Wikipedia, Ethnologue, lists "Bengali script" as the writing system for Rangpuri language[97]. But Chaipau is rejecting the source and replacing it with citations from sources that don't even support his edit to include Assamese alphabet or Bengali-Assamese script in what seems to be a source misrepresentation. Instead of discussing and addressing the issue, Chaipau and Msasag has resorted to edit-warring. The predisputed version at both articles had Bengal as the writing system for Rangpuri language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have tried many ways to break this stonewalling by Za-ari-masen, to no avail. The biggest hindrance is this editor's behavior. We took the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_Ethnologue_reliable_for_the_Kamta_group_of_languages?. It was pointed out there that Ethnologue was a WP:TERTIARY source and Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY [98], but Za-ari-masen continued to not hear and renewed his tirades in Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script#Article_title (after slapping a tag on the article [99]). It was pointed out to him that he has been pushing his POV persistently since February 2019 [100]. He would move the page unilaterally without any discussion [101], [102], [103] (all of which had to be reverted. Eg. [104]) His behavior has been persistently disruptive on a long term basis, and he has been a hindrance to WP:CONSENSUS. Chaipau (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this thread (Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system) Za-ari-masen is arguing with each and every other editors commenting there, which includes me, u:Austronesier, u:Msasag, u:Mohsin274, etc. Even after he "solicited" help from others [105], he ignored their advice when they went against him [106], [107], and continued with his POV pushing. Za-ari-masen is extremely disruptive, and in this case continued to stonewall even as there was a clear consensus among the rest of the editors. Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why you are showing diffs of selective comments. On Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics, Uanfala commented that the Toulmen source that you were citing is already referenced in the Ethnologue survey for the language. So that makes Ethnologue a superior source in my opinion. In another section of the same talk page, LiliCharlie [commented ""It"? No. Unicode calls the script "Bengali script"]". Even on Rangpuri Language, Fylindfotberserk commented "As for this matter, one can ref the unicode source if it is newer and necessary." Overall, the neutral editors didn't take any sides as to what the script should be called. In fact, the diff of the comment by UserNumer you showed actually supported my position as he commented "Rangpuri is the term used by ethnic Bengalis of Bangladesh (and possibly a few West Bengalis). This specific tongue is written with the Bengali script". Yet, I agreed to keep both the scripts in the infobox as a compromise but even that was reverted by Msasag, who has simply been aimlessly edit-warring. The moves on Bengali-Assamese script were made 18 months back and I already accepted my mistake and refrained from moving the article. Even there, several editors have had corroborated my argument, [108], [109]. I'm at least allowed to discuss my points on talk pages, this is not WP:DE. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Za-ari-masen is making conflicting and misleading edits. I have noticed he changed the writing system of some Languages from "Bengali-Assamese script" to "Bengali script". In the talk pages, Msasag and Chaipau have provided many references to make him understand why it should be "Bengali-Assamese script" and not "Bengali script". But, he rejected all the points and is not ready to agree. We didn't reach any conclusion yet, but he is continuously making changes. And when Msasag reverted his repetitive edits, he reported the user for edit warring. He also proposed to rename "Bengali-Assamese script" to "Bengali script". By doing this, he will recreate an issue that was solved long ago after a year long discussion. Mohsin274 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Za-ari-masen is regularly engaging in disruptive editing on Bangladesh Liberation War by removing peoples' comments,[110] starting RfC and then withdrawing after it went against his POV,[111] casting WP:ASPERSIONS by calling editors a "nationalist"[112], engaging in very selective WP:CANVASSING,[113] wikilawyering,[114] and more. A sanction for such WP:CIR issues is definitely warranted. Orientls (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd request the admins to look at the diffs carefully because Orientls is clearly misrepresenting the diffs. The comment I removed from Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War was a blatant WP:NPA which was already stated by User:Nomian at the discussion[115] and after being restored by another editor, the comment was eventually redacted by an admin. I withdrew the RfC because according to WP:RFCCLOSE, the nom can withdraw the RfC. There was a solution proposed and approved by uninvolved editors so I thought there was no need for an RfC anymore. Before withdrawing, I also left a comment expressing my desire to withdraw, nobody objected and User:Aditya Kabir even supported it[116]. The comment being described as WP:ASPERSION was "I think nationalist sentiments have been exhibited from both sides...", I don't how it's aspersion. Regarding WP:CANVASSING, the diff itself shows that I didn't even notify any editor as I used "noping" to write the usernames of different editors in my comment. This false allegations are nothing new by Orientls as he has been doing this for everyone who opposes his POV, even User:Aditya Kabir and User:Kmzayeem have been subjected to such false allegations by Orientls multiple times at the talk page. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But how any diffs were misrepresented? Just because you don't see any disruption in your editing, doesn't mean you are not being disruptive. I see you are still selectively WP:CANVASSING the editors so that they can come and defend you but note that you are alone responsible for your edits. These 2 diffs[117][118] are not similar to each other. "I withdrew the RfC because according to WP:RFCCLOSE, the nom can withdraw the RfC" but WP:RFCCLOSE's 5 points contradict every single reasoning of yours. Seeing your response here, it is clear that this is exactly what you do when you are discussing articles or interacting with other editors i.e. exhibit your own issues with poor comprehension skills. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"But how any diffs were misrepresented?" From what I can see, not all diffs match Orientis' description of them. Za-ari-masen removed an anonymous editor's comments about the inferiority of Bangladesh's military in comparison to Pakistan, and the same editor's comment that the ones who disagree are Bangladeshi nationalists. The comment was not particularly constructive. The "aspersions" diff acknowledged nationalist sentiments on both sides of an argument, without accusing any specific user. The "canvassing" diff demonstrates that no users were pinged, so not a real case of canvassing. Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean from "an anonymous editor's comments"? See WP:IPHUMAN. The messages clearly didn't warrant blanket removal, and removing the comment was nothing more than an attempt reduce opposition. Making conduct based allegations without citing diffs is casting aspersions and just making acknowledgement of "nationalist sentiments on both sides of an argument" without providing any evidence does not make it any less of "aspersion" as long as it is not backed with the evidence. Orientls (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the stories and backgrounds here, but the one I know seem to be somewhat mispresented by the diffs and the commentary provided by Orientls. Za-ari definitely has discussed the closure of the RfC before he closed it (he also stated his reason), he was within his rights to do so (though it was probably not the right course of action, given the combustible nature of the discussion), and when reverted, he didn't go into war.

He closed the RfC because he explicitly agreed to the status quo achieved, not because it went against him. Rather the current status quo went against what Orientls wanted and he is the one who reverted the RfC closure (I am not trying to incriminate him, just pointing out the irony). As for the "nationalist POV" bit, I believe that particular word was used over a dozen times by at least half a dozen editors, including Orientls and I.

As anyone reading this would have noticed, I have provided no diffs here (I don't want to waste my energy on digging dirt for nothing). But that doesn't mean I can't. Anyone can ask for the diffs if needed, and I shall provide them as promptly I can.

Thank you. Y Tea anyone? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The close was completely inappropriate and having "discussed the closure of the RfC" is not gonna fly especially when Za-ari-masem is deliberately misrepresenting WP:RFCCLOSE. I am not the "one who reverted the RfC closure", and not a single time I have used the word "nationalist". You should better try citing diffs for your claims and you are not going to put up a strong defense for Za-ari-masen if you continue making these invalid claims. Orientls (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. You didn't right "nationalist POV", you wrote just "POV" (I checked back). And you didn't revert the closure. Srijanx22 did, another editor from the team bludgeoning that talk, did. If I remember correctly the status quo really went against all of your opinions (not Za-ari's). Good that you have most everyone of that team here, including him. Anyways, my interest here is not Za-ari or Rangpuri language. So I think you can continue this without my participation. You guys have already managed a 48 hours block against me, and I don't think I have enough lawyering in me to fight with this kind of games. Y I go back to my cup of tea. Have nice day all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Self-trout Not nice. Reducted. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Za-ari-masen has been blocked 2 times this year over a subject that is intersection between India and Bangladesh. There has been already one ANI thread against Za-ari-masen earlier this year.[119] Two days ago, Za-ari-masen went ahead to report an editor on WP:ANEW[120] while himself violating WP:3RR by making 6 reverts in just 7 hours 1 day.[121][122][123][124][125][126] The above response which reads nothing more than WP:GASLIGHTING given the misrepresentation of WP:RFCCLOSE alone, I do think that Za-ari-masen lacks the necessary competence to edit in this area and should be topic banned from anything related to India and Bangladesh for an indefinite period.

• Support as proposer. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The continued double downing, failure to understand any policies and the recent edit warring against multiple editors is enough to justify this sanction. Orientls (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A topic ban based on two incidents, a mention of past blocks (dude, many of our admins have one or two blocks under their belts, and I have one too, WP is not about being judgemental), an essay and an untruth about an RfC closure (see above discussion)... can that really be a case for topic ban? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above. [reply]

• Oppose A clear case of editor targeting. Orientls and Abhishek0831996 are part of the group of users who had been edit-warring and stonewalling Bangladesh Liberation War. Za-ar-masen's RfC at the talk page of Bangladesh Liberation War brought attention of the wider community to stop the stonewalling and this led them to target the editor here. Orientls has clearly falsified the diffs which had been explained by Dimadick above. Even Abhishek0831996 has used the same tactic by falsely claiming "6 reverts in just 7 hours" when the diffs actually extend across 31 hours and all of the diffs don't seem to be reverts. I think an action is due against Orientls and Abhishek0831996 for using ANI as a forum for personal vendetta against an editor, that too by falsifying diffs. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kmzayeem (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above. [reply]

• I don't see a single diff being falsified, and given you don't even understand what is a WP:REVERT since all of those cited edits indeed "seem to be reverts", I can't expect anything from you. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems both Abhishek0831996 and Orientls have started to bludgeon, [127], [128], like they did at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As the reporter, I shall not take a position here; but in this thread (Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system) Za-ari-masen is arguing with each and every other editors commenting there, which includes me, u:Austronesier, u:Msasag, u:Mohsin274, etc. Even after he "solicited" help from others [129], he ignored their advice when they went against him [130], [131], and continued with his POV pushing. Za-ari-masen is extremely disruptive, and in this case continued to stonewall even as there was a clear consensus among the rest of the editors. Chaipau (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — moving this comment to the top of the section in context. Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Misrepresentation of source on Bengali–Assamese languages[132] is concerning because the quote verifies the information of the source by noting "as used in Assamese script". But this user makes 3 reverts [133][134][135] without any participation on talk page just to remove the term by falsely claiming that it is not in the source. This clearly shows that we are better off without having this user create problems in this whole subject. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Abhishek0831996 and Orientls I was waiting for Srijanx22 to join in. This is the same group of editors that has been hounding Za-ari and bludgeoning the Liberation War article, has fought him in other ANIs and came after me when I supported him. This pretty much looks like a pattern of behaviour with this particular group of editors. But, seriously guys, are you going to use every revert Za-ari ever made against him? Well... your choice. Maybe you guys will win. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Self-trout Not nice. Reducted. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: When Za-ari-masen was warned about edit warring in the jhalmuri and mutton curry articles, he called Kingarthur581 a "troll."[136] Also, when his behavior was pointed out, he "did not hear that".[137] --1990'sguy (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with what have been said above that this seems to be a spillover of the animosity shown at Bangladesh liberation war dispute. Folks, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to fight wars as representatives of different countries. Ganging up on a person if you disagree with them is uncalled for. W.r.t the original report, I don't see any formal dispute resolution effort at the language articles, perhaps, adopting one of the DR venues is the best approach to sort out a disagreement. WP:ANI only creates animosity and should be used as the last resort. Nomian (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomian Thank you for your suggestion on taking this through the DR process, but we have tried many ways to break this stonewalling by a single editor, to no avail. The biggest hindrance is this editor's behavior. We took the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_Ethnologue_reliable_for_the_Kamta_group_of_languages?. It was pointed out there that Ethnologue was a WP:TERTIARY source and Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY [138], but Za-ari-masen continued to not hear and renewed his tirades in Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script#Article_title (after slapping a tag on the article [139]). It was pointed out to him that he has been pushing his POV persistently since February 2019 [140]. He would move the page unilaterally without any discussion [141], [142], [143] (all of which had to be reverted. Eg. [144]) His behavior has been persistently disruptive on a long term basis, and he has been a hindrance to WP:CONSENSUS. Chaipau (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC) - moving this comment to a reply to Za-ari-masen instead.[reply]

• Comment Hi, I stumbled in this discussion through the notification for mentioning me here, I am not here to judge anyone or take any party's side. I do agree that I had disagreement and argument with Za-ari-masen previously but he is also very friendly toward me and helped me create the article shukto and I think exept some disagreement, he is a very nice person. But I am also opposing the term "Ganging up on a person" used by Nomian. Accusing the supporters as some "Indian Wikipedians who are trying to gang up on a Bangladeshi Wikipedian and block him just for personal disagreement without any reason" is a very serious accusation when the discussion going on here with each party providing their proofs and reasons and where the general consensus is being taken up without disrespecting any opposition party's opinion. I hope Za-ari-masen will evade this process and won't engage in further NPOV dispute as accused. Kingarthur581 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I DID NOT HEAR THAT is best way to describe the attitude Za-ari-masen pursues. He has been blocked multiple times for similar set of misconducts earlier as well. Most of his edits which caused him to be reported here, are focused on unsourced PoV tweaks, not about substantial changes in article but rather like changing country of origin being Bangladesh for cuisines/languages/scripts (regularly involves in it and causes disputes) or Bangladeshi victory on liberation war etc..[145][146] He misrepresents sources, rejects or ignores elaborations by other editors, even pushes news articles from barely used sources as "established reliable sources" [147] for whom, not even an RfC ever occurred, (that even without interpreting the context within those sources). He has been pushing for a result unsupported by sources on Bangladesh Liberation War, and always starts to accuse other editors of not assuming good faith towards him, bullying him or gaming the system. But has never cared to failed to provide any sources. He holds serious competence issues and displays gross failures to understand Wikipedia policies about WP:VAND/WP:EW/WP:CANVASSING.[148][149] It is not like that anyone has not tried to help him understanding how system works. [150][151][152][153], he ignores that and instead flamebaits is his own misconduct. It is not entirely true that his misconducts are only because his lack of understanding of sources and wikipedia. But rather his WP:ILIKEIT preferences motivate him to derail underway dispute resolutions. For instance, closure of this ongoing RfC without concensus towards his side, in fact, not even any substantial leaning to his preferred version, yet has an approved version (by which editors?) as a result [154] and in fact had been dragging his entire case in this RfC solely on emotions of editors on his side than any single reliable source. There are plenty more issues he has created and has become a problem for lot of good editors. He clearly is a disruptor than a contributor and should be topic banned until he realises and acknowledges for what he has been reported. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a lot going there — repeating "source" 10 times, discussing an RfC closure (which is still within Za-ari's rights, though the unnecessary revert of the RfC is probably within the right of the reverting editor as well), repeating other editors, and contradictory agrument like he doesn't understand policy and he ignores policy (which, obviously, are not the same)... is there anything in this long and somewhat repeatative post that addresses Chaipau's complaint? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shared my experiences, but don't forget multiple articles have been mentioned above where Za-ari-masen has aggressively edit warred. For policies, he indeed didn't understand it much. And kept mum on his own misconducts (and misconducts from the editors he favoured as well) to little part he was citing repeatedly. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Quite frankly, I do have to agree with the other Oppose !votes. A lot of this has came from assuming bad faith. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would again urge the admins to carefully verify whether the descriptions of the diffs match or not. The source mentioned by Srijanx22 actually states, The Rajbanshis are making an effort to rediscover their own script by resurrecting the scripts of the texts written mostly during the 15th century which means the Rajbanshis are not using Assamese alphabet but are trying to create their own separate script which is why I removed Assamese alphabet. The claim of 1990'sguy is false because I didn't call the editor a troll rather described the inappropriate notice on my talkpage as "troll notice" in an edit summary. Aman.kumar.goel has just restated the same false allegation that he has been making against me for a number of times. All my edits are sourced, on Bangladesh Liberation War, I provided quotation from a book published by University Press Limited to back my argument. The news article mentioned by Aman is actually a source from The Daily Star (Bangladesh) which was used in an unsourced stub article, so essentially he was arguing to revert back to the unsourced version of the article without even providing any contradictory source. In both cases, he has tried to reject the sources just because they didn't match his POV. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The above comment by Za-ari-masen is really a case of WP:CIR. Searching for a script does not mean finding it. And then finding that the Rajbangsi script was identical to the Assamese script does not mean that the Assamese script is the Bengali script. I am amazed at these mind-bending inferences. I have noticed no substantive contribution from this editor in any of the articles I have seen so far except POV pushing; nor have I seen any help from him for the community to come to WP:CONSENSUS except never-ending conflict on nationalism issues. I have no choice but to support a topic ban, if not an indefinite ban. This editor displays WP:CIR issues and helps Wikipedia in nothing. Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superbsic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account less than a week ago and has been primarily active within the last 24 hours. Since then has indulged in an almost exclusively disruptive pattern of editing on several articles including a BLP. To me it seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Timeline of Diffs is as follows; the exact times are in IST:

• 11:09, 2 September 2020: Adds the unsourced term "Jihadi" to the ideology section of an organisation which already lists "Islamic fundamentalism" while leaving the edit summary of "Fuck Islam".

• 12:41, 2 September 2020: Removes a reliably sourced term "militant" alongside its references from the article of another organisation with the edit summary of "minor spelling and word editings" while marking the edit as minor.

• 12:58, 2 September 2020: Adds the unsourced terms of "Naxalite" and "anti-national" to the lead of a BLP with the edit summary of "minor word changes" and again marking the edit as minor.

• 13:01, 2 September 2020: Repeats the same as above after being reverted and warned.

• 13:42, 2 September 2020, 13:44, 2 September 2020, 13:44, 2 September 2020, 13:47, 2 September 2020, etc: Spamming a number of editors with the same message stating that "they have been on wiki for a long time" and requesting to be nominated for RfA.

• 13:53, 2 September 2020: Repeats the same action as in the second diff, this time leaving the references intact.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Here is a note I just left on their talk: Hi there Superbsic, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I'll be frank and honest, I feel like you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In the short amount of time you've been here 3 admins have already left you notes on your talk. You have been leaving extremely rude edit summaries, constantly removing sourced content, breaking NPOVs, going to multiple sysops' and crats' talks and asking for adminship despite clearly failing all the requirements, and edit warring at Bajrang Dal, breaking sanctions, all of which can be seen in contributions. The only positive contributions you've made have had to be reverted because you improperly used images. It is very likely you'll be blocked and I thought I might as well make this before you ask why. No constructive contributions and mostly disruptive editing. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to block as NOTHERE, but I'm feeling nice this morning, so let's see what they have to say for themselves. Of course, now that I've tried to AGF they're probably going to be CU-blocked within an hour GeneralNotability (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The spamming of RfA suggestions is pinch of salt territory for me. The rest is pretty bad, but as GN said above I'm not against a ban, but it's too borderline for me to want to enforce one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Fuck Islam" edit summary combined with the other inappropriate behavior described above leads me to conclude that this editor should be indeffed. I would do so myself, except that I gave the editor some advice at the Teahouse, which they have not yet followed. Though my involvement is minor, I think it would be best for a completely uninvolved administrator to make that decision based on the evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was offensive, but categorizing Lashkar-e-Taiba as a Jihadist organization seems correct. At least it matches the Jihadist-related categories already added to the article. If not banned, Superbsic should learn to avoid using misleading edit summaries. Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of my relatives requested an unblock via UTRS after she was ensnared in a range block dated August 2. That unblock request can be viewed at this link. She made a similar unblock request via UTRS after she was blocked from editing her own talk page on August 7. That second unblock request can be viewed at this link. I'm wondering why there's a "Handling administrator" among the listed "Appeal details" here but not here. Is this noticeboard an appropriate place to ask? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. HistoryManUSA (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing a handling administrator is not listed in the second unblock request because it was closed without comment or further action, unlike the first, which was "claimed" by JJMC89 before it was closed. It was closed by Ohnoitsjamie, as one can see in the activity logs. Why do you ask? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: Thanks for your response. I'd asked because I was hoping the handling administrator would clarify the reason the unblock request was declined. My understanding is that administrators are able to post comments on UTRS requests that only other administrators can see. Can you confirm that there are no such comments at either this link or this one? HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: (?) HistoryManUSA (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on whether there are or not. If you want more information on the decline, you should ask Ohnoitsjamie, although I see from your talk page you're already in communication with them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: Thanks for your response. Administrator Ohnoitsjamie has explicitly refused to respond to me further and falsely suggested I'm a blocked sock who's created this account for the sole purpose of wasting people's time, but I'm planning to try again. HistoryManUSA (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Hi again. You appear to be the closing administrator for my UTRS appeal of a talk page block, as well as for a UTRS unblock request made by one of my relatives. Would you mind telling me how many private comments from administrators there are at this link, and this one? HistoryManUSA (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(nac) From your links, all those blocks were applied to anonymous IP ranges. The best get-around for an honest editor is to register a named account. That doesn't stop all rangeblocks (to which WP:ADMINs are immune), but is likely to get a more sympathetic and speedier response to an {{unblock}} or UTRS request.

I speak from experience. I have only ever edited while logged-in, but have three times been collateral damage in a hard rangeblock, in two of which I was unable to post anywhere in any Wikipedia (though I've heard since that there are obscure bits of Meta which might have been open to me). I didn't even know about UTRS until after my second block (hey, I'd only made 100,000 edits), which needed off-wiki emails and some hours work by at least two admins to get lifted. (YOU try contacting a steward who either (a) doesn't respond to emails or (b) whose email is closed.) I live in a block of 80 apartments, and imagine that the idiot vandal(s) had the same IP as me. Narky Blert (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Thanks for the advice and the sympathetic story. What's "(nac)"? HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryManUSA: Non-admin comment; to show that an editor giving advice is not speaking with the authority of one with adminship. Narky Blert (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Got it. Thanks. HistoryManUSA (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern is regarding an issue (singular) with Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). I'll be short. What the fuck is this [158]? Isn't this as egregious as someone putting a picture of a certain person who says bigly, beside an article titled Mental disorder? I don't go around digging someone's edit history. But I am confident that despite being aware of BLP policies, he made a troll page to provoke others. I have zero intentions of ever communicating with him in the future but I want to ask him here. What's your obsession with Greta (who was then 16)? His version was removed here and here (by User:ජපස and User:Bradv respectively), which means it stayed in public and indexed for more than a year perhaps. - hako9 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't go around digging someone's edit history." - but you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? The picture seems fine in the context of that one-line stub. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? What? The article has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety. - hako9 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's not obvious from the diff you provided. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target:
  • [159]- accuses User:Ajf773 of racism
  • [160]- more accusations of racism, this one leveled at @Piotrus:
  • [161]- accuses User:Soetermans of shilling for Fandom, Inc.
  • [162]- Further accusations of racism
• Good luck getting AfD closers to acknowledge these personal attacks, but maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI. Reyk _YO! 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article in question is currently at AfD, where I have explained some history of the article. It was initially based on this BBC article, which highlighted Greta Thunberg in this context, including the cited quotation of hers. I read that BBC article at the time, noticed that we didn't have a corresponding article and so got one started. Lots of other editors have expanded the article since and I've mostly left them to it. This just seems to be ordinary editing per WP:BOLD. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you, for instance, put a picture of Sushant Singh Rajput in an article titled depression, with his quotes (out of context), in the caption. The BBC article doesn't put her picture as the top display. Is this not completely un-encyclopedic? Isn't this enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate this article with her personal life and her mental health, all in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks a lot, for leaving this articles to others. The harm you caused would maybe be more difficult to fix than creating an article from scratch. - hako9 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(after several edit conflicts) No, "his version" was not removed in those edits. He neither created the caption removed by User:ජපස nor the text removed by User:Bradv. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Phil Bridger: for pointing it out to me though, that those weren't "his versions". Striked that word. - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The OP is now claiming that I have an "obsession with Greta" and adds some innuendo about her age. But the OP fails to provide evidence of such an obsession. So far as I recall, I have never edited the article about her and it wasn't on my watchlist when I looked at it just now. I don't think I've even read the article before as it was interesting to discover that her second name is Tintin, which I was not previously aware of.

What I have done previously is create some other articles about environmental topics including beach cleaning; back to nature; ammonia pollution; decline in insect populations; plogging; Boyan Slat; sharawadgi. I have also created hundreds of articles on a variety of other topics as I'm not especially obsessed by any particular topic. One such other article was give a dog a bad name and hang him. I don't recall exactly, but suppose that was inspired by some similar proceeding here at ANI. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it interesting for you to discover her second name is Tintin? - hako9 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of articles about ecoanxiety mention Greta. She represents worrying about the environment rather well. I don't see this is an insult. Why call it a "mental disorder" when people are worried about the environment? Dream Focus 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this version (before today's nomination)- [163]. Quoting from the article's lead Swedish teenager, Greta Thunberg, is a high-profile example of youth who have been affected and has been pivotal in making climate anxiety more visible around the world. At the age of 11, she became seriously depressed because of her worries about global warming, although her anxiety exacerbated her pre-existing mental health problems. Here is the source (paints a completely different picture imv)The Guardian. Do you find anything wrong? If not then ask yourself, what is this article about. Is it about psychological emotion or about a girl and her personal life. If a line on this and her past was included in her own article, that would've been fine. This isn't. - hako9 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't in the original article he created. Her article has a section for her mental health issues including depression. Greta_Thunberg#Mental_health Dream Focus 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, It wasn't. But I'll repeat, his creation of the article was done with a purpose of enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate the article with her personal life and her mental health, in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds rather ridiculous. Why would you believe someone would create an article for that devious purpose? How exactly would that even work? You honestly believe he somehow knew others would come and add in more information that you find offensive, despite it being listed in her own article? Dream Focus 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section on her page distinguishes completely, her past and the issues she overcame, in contrast to her activism later in life. The article portrays that the psychological response in teens is unsubstantiated by way of making her the poster child of people who had issues earlier in life, and who are known for that mere reason. - hako9 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not seeing an ANI-level issue here. Would need much more evidence to make the case for a tban or some other sort of action. I don't agree with Andrew's editorial decision in that article, but don't think it rises to the level of a behavioral problem. BD2412 suggested a very sensible approach to handling the article(s), and as Reyk's comments show, the longer this stays open the more likely it is to drift into other issues. If something's going to happen with Andrew (or ARS, since that's relevant to this AfD) it's probably not going to happen in the context of this thread. $0.02 — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI- every time I allow myself the least bit of optimism I end up disappointed. Why do I bother? Reyk _YO! 18:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like I stand corrected. Usually bringing up unrelated issues with regard to the subject of an ANI report, when the initial report doesn't have much meat to it, doesn't go anywhere (and IMO weakens those same arguments for when they are relevant down the road), but it looks like perhaps enough is enough [for a warning]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Although the diffs provided by Reyk are much much more serious, can someone please comment on whether an article creation like this is ohk? Am I losing my shit over a paltry issue or does my concern have maybe, an iota of validity? - hako9 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Rhododendrites, I understand what you're saying and I guess my passive agressive complaining just now wasn't a good idea. But sometimes you just can't satisfy everyone. If I protest at the AfDs, closers ignore it. If I start an ANI myself people will accuse me of just having an axe to grind. If I attach my concerns to another ANI regarding insinuations against people who don't deserve it that's too off-topic. If I wait for a more AfD-centric discussion I'll get dismissed because the alleged misbehaviour was too long ago. Reyk _YO! 20:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrew Davidson: if you post more bad faith, passive-aggressive speculation about the motives of editors, I will block you for violations of WP:CIVIL. Insinuating that someone is racist or shilling is unacceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Chin up, Reyk! Lev!vich 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's warning and urge Andrew Davidson to take it seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I also endorse NinjaRobotPirate's warning, and will enforce the same if I see uncivil conduct continue. BD2412 T 18:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding my support and my endorsement to this as well, please take this seriously. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It's nearly ten years ago (I did have to check, it wasn't imprinted on my brain) that I blocked Andrew for equating deletionists to Nazis, I really would have hoped that this would have improved since then. It really should. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought this complaint was something of an exaggeration until I saw this diff. Here, the user lists three sources that are ostensibly about the topic of eco-anxiety. The problem is that none of the sources are about eco-anxiety. None of them use the term even once. This kind of appalling editorial indiscretion is an enormous red flag. I don't know what to do about it, but it's clear this user is here to use Wikipedia as a venue for his own original research rather than a means to collate what third-party sources say about a topic. This is a really big issue as far as I'm concerned -- especially as the user seems to have sufficient abilities to make it appear as though he is following Wikipedia standards and practices when in fact he is flouting them completely. Something needs to be done. jps (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The OP who couldn't properly link a WP:DIFF aside, I was pinged by Reyk and I do concur that Andrew's behavior in some areas of the project is problematic, in two dimensions. First, an occasional lack of civility is an issue, coupled with a significant amount of POINTless disruption with AfDs. Few examples: 1) an edit summary accusing others of disruptive PROD (I think it is deleted now). 2) in another recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull Cave Andrew accused the nom (me) of "abuse of our deletion process"; his Keep vote was the only one there and User:Argento Surfer explicitly said 'you should stop tossing around these bad faith criticisms of "abuse"' 4) another recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byakhee saw where his keep vote was the only dissenting one saw him making yet another personal attack at the nom (me): "The nomination's claims are therefore false.". This has been pointed out by User:GizzyCatBella [164]. 5) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redbird (comics) he accused the nom (me...) of "cookie-cutter" nomination, his post there led to explicit criticism by User:Darkknight2149: [165]; and he used the cookie-cutter in other AdDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraz's Castle where again his vote was the only dissenting one 6) a pattern of dePRODing articles with an unhelpful rationale, and not participating in the resulting AfDs even when pinged directly (I could link dozens of cases like the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamaran or the still ongoing but quite clear Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purdue Outing Club; here's a random one from few months ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Clark - please note that this is not a case of 'once every few weeks', but rather 'several times a week'); this is particularly problematic when the dePRODs are done on content that is unreferenced and later not contested by anyone like the (still ongoing) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wingmen_of_Thanagar. His pattern of dePRODing has been subject to numerous complaints before like this recent one by User:DoubleGrazing: [166]; they are easy to see because Andrew habitually removes such warnings from his talkpage... through some discussions are preserved: User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Mass_prodding_by_Piotrus, few more at User talk:Andrew Davidson/deletion discussions but I think most are not archived and I don't have the time and will to dig through the diffs of his talk page. ANI archives, however, are more stable: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal:_Require_Andrew_Davidson_to_provide_a_rationale_with_each_de-PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD. I really don't know what to do, since this is not white and black, some of Andrew's dePRODs are valid, and so are some of his AfD comments. But the ratio of bad to good is a problem here. I really don't like the idea of sanctions when an editor is editing in good faith, and even through I disagree with Andrew quite a lot, I am not sure I'd support any topic ban. But one suggestion I do have is a custom sanction that would force him to provide a meaningful rationale with his dePRODs. Check: [167] and remember that it only shows kept articles (or ones nobody bothered to challenge again). But a lot of the stuff he dePRODs with no edit summary, not bothering to comment in AfD, effectively wastes community time (and I repeat - if anyone wants more data points, I can easily list several dozens of articles that Andrew dePRODed with a generic edit summary, that he did not participate in a resulting AfD even after being pinged, and that were uncontroversial deletes). And when he comments in those AfDs, as the diffs show, too often those comments are not constructive nor polite :( PS. To be clear: I don't mind deprods, and I don't want to topic ban Andrew from dePRODs, but what I see is a pattern of mass dePRODing with no BEFORE on his part, as evidenced by mentioned dozens of articles that he PRODed with no rationale, that in turn were AfDed with him being pinged and where he did not participate, and nobody else found any reason to keep an article. When this happens dozens of times each months for years now I think we have a problem. Andrew needs to stop dePRODing on a whim, and when he occasionally participates in a resulting AfDs, he needs to AGF the nom and make his arguments constructive, not battleground-ish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I did not link a diff because I had a single issue with the user. That of creation of an article with a picture and caption of a person to try to portray that person as maybe an environmental alarmist at best and a person with mental health issues at worst . If no one finds this as an issue of malintent, it would be better that I strike my comments and let others speak. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. - hako9 (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, in my opinion, the matter you brought forward is worthy of attention, and is relevant to the broader discussion, and there is no reason for you to apologize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I was pinged, I'll say that my interactions with Andrew have probably been disagreements at least as often as not, but I believe he's a net positive for the project. His standards for inclusion are lower than average, but his quality of contribution is higher than average - when he was reviewing a DYK nom for me, he actually bought the book and read it before passing so it wouldn't just be a rubber stamp. Although I can appreciate the sheer volume of deletion noms he wants to oppose is probably overwhelming, I would encourage him to put effort into improving the articles he defends rather than add a bullet pointed list of references to the AfD. That effort will either result in some WP:HEY keeps and people will start giving his opinion more weight, or he'll realize his sources weren't as useful as he believed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is nothing egregious here. And there is no need for the OP to say, "What the fuck is..." It does not make the argument better, it is distracting. Andrew Davidson has written a great article and many others on the project...that the OP misinterpreted the intentions of Andrew D who used a photograph of a well known environmental voice, is not the fault of Andrew D. This is also quite a dramatic revert by JPS also with a very...uncivil "Fuck no" edit summary. That the truth is offensive to certain editors is not a problem with Andrew D, and now that everyone has been overruled by Bradv's edit we can move on. Or maybe not...JPS also nominated the article for deletion as possible WP:REVENGE and that seems more egregious and disruptive to the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No need for action here except maybe a boomerang. If there was a valid case to make against another editor it should be possible to do so without use of the f word, calling them a troll or assuming you know what they think. Accusations that include phrases such as "He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target". Don't need further investigation - unless accompanied by a diff from the target saying that they hadn't actually meant an accusation but had only done it to annoy. The best way to deal with such attacks is to dismiss them out of hand. ϢereSpielChequers 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WereSpielChequers, because you know that the Colonel's accusations of racism and shilling are indefensible, you seek to dismiss the complaint by quibbling about its wording. Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Reyk _YO! 15:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they are indefensible, but that isn't the point. Using the F word, calling someone a troll and presuming you know what they think are not some minor typo that could be dismissed as a quibble. If there were valid complaints to make against the Colonel they could have been made without them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have tried to dismiss my valid complaints before several administrators in good standing backed them up. Bit late to protect your friend now. Reyk _YO! 16:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope none of our colleagues share whatever moral code led you to conclude that three accusations of racism merit "no need for action" but using the words "fuck" and "troll" merits "maybe a boomerang". Lev!vich 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So mentioning a "system bias" makes you a racist? He comments to someone from New Zealand [168] and someone from Poland [169] how they don't seem to mind if list of shopping malls in their countries don't have sources, but are willing to delete the list of those in Africa. Race was never mentioned nor implied. Just an accusation of a double standard for their own nations perhaps. Not assuming good faith though. Should've been worded differently. Dream Focus 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dream Focus, Why did you conveniently leave out this diff, where Andrew, called another user (who nac'd an afd) a "presumptious (sic) non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place".

  I am speaking for myself here, but I wouldn't like to be talked in that tone ever. IRL or online. If someone called me a presumptuous guy who needed to be put in their place, I frankly wouldn't complain. But why mention a user's nationality? What was the intent there? Notice the mention of nationality after conjunction "and", as if to belittle someone. Am I reaching here? Or Is this the kind of way and tone to speak to someone? - hako9 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hako9, actually Davidson is falsely attributing those hateful and racist views to someone else. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading tea leaves to assign motives or racist intent (I personally do not see it). Too often with written word, editors see what they want. Lightburst (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, How would you classify that projection? Some kind of paternalistic prejudice, to be too polite? - hako9 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the diffs supplied by Reyk at the top of the thread and I'm utterly shocked, especially from someone who I have worked with in many positive ways to write and improve the encyclopedia over several years. Andrew, this comment is a personal attack and I'm pleased to see that fellow administrators agree that is completely unacceptable to insult fellow editors like this. Please do not do this again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some POV stuff about Britney Spears being better than other singers is being added to articles by two IPs from Massachusetts. Can we fix this? Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:1000:B026:D805:FCFE:8588:6FB6:B04F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1000:B016:1079:B55F:FE4B:6324:80CA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I've blocked the most recent one for a few days as it's pretty unhelpful editing - but these seem to be fairly dynamic Verizon IPs covering most of the state; we would have to rangeblock a /42 just to cover the range these two are on. It's pretty harmless low-grade stuff so I doubt it's worth taking any drastic measures at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 20:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth asking at WP:RFPP for protection if they return to specific articles.--Hippeus (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor was recently sanctioned for persistent edit-warring. Since then, they made edits to 2021 United States presidential inauguration in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP, which were reverted by another editor. In previous discussions, they have accused me of "deliberate malice" and "vandalism" for supporting the use of this photo of Joe Biden. Today, they added WP:SYNTH to Timeline of protests against Donald Trump which I reverted and warned them about. They responded yet again with personal attacks, accusing me of "stalking" them and intentionally "triggering" them. I also found that they are currently appealing their WP:AE sanction; their appeal contains lies and personal attacks against me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79. They have persisted with this disruption for months on end and have shown no sign of stopping or any acknowledgement of their behavior being disruptive. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any other explanation. It was @Tartan357's actions which started this whole sad business. I am the victim here, and if anyone should be sanctioned, it should be them.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a.personal thing between me and them. I asked them why they started this, but they immediately went here instead of discussing it in a civil manner...which begs he quesion, can a non-administrator use this symbol in someone's talk page? Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No comments on the validity of this complaint nor its rebuttal, but Arglebargle79, {{Uw-nor4}} is a standard template warning that can be used by anyone, if it's needed. And, {{ANI-notice}} is the required notice for ANI matters. You should have noticed the big, yellow warning in your edit window when you replied here. Notice the word, may. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arglebargle79, the "other explanation" is that there are perennial problems with your editing. Please stop accusing me of misconduct without evidence. What you wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79 was particularly frustrating. This has been going on for months, and at this point, it's harassment. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 04:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not examined this at all, so I'm not juding who is right or wrong, but "I cannot find any other explanation" exposes a logic flaw - the Holmesian fallacy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we are here. They could have explained to me why they did it on my talk page or the DNC page's talk page, but no. They came here to have me blocked.Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The chance someone is willing to explain why they did something tends to go way, way down when the way the person seeking an explanation asks is to accuse the editor of "stalking" and trying to "trigger" them, rather that just politely asking "hey, can you explain why you did X?" If that's your definition of discussing things in civil manner, I think that's a key part of the problem.Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that despite that, I have explained the reasoning behind my reverts every single time. As have all other editors involved. See User talk:Arglebargle79#September 2020 for the most recent example. Arglebargle79 simply refuses to see what's right in front of them, and has gone so far as to deny that they've written things that there is clear evidence of. It's WP:ICANTHEARYOU. This is perhaps best exemplified by their relentless war against the Joe Biden photo. Despite being sanctioned by the community for warring over it, they still, months later, are claiming: There was no consensus about it and the other was far superior. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he didn't. The first time, an offensive photo, to me, was replaced by a photo that was approved by everyone and is currently used by the campaign and its partners for the campaign. There was no harm no foul. The first thing done was to have me sanctioned. The last time, Tartan357...He KNEW about how I felt about the photo, The chart was created by me and I wasn't under any obligation to use it. But he, KNOWING how I would react, changed it to the offensive photo in question deliberately. The Community didn't sanction me, a single Administrator did after Tartan complained again, nobody else had any problem with the second photo, which was agreed for that page by consensus. It was a compromise. I accepted it and Tartan didn't. People change photos every day of the week here. Also, I asked him why he did AFTER he complained and started sanctions against me because he did so first. The second time, I asked again, and he said that it was the consensus picture, even though it wasn't. The warning about the Inaugural article was fictional and the march article was entirely links to other articles. There was no "original unpublished" research. Like I said above, it seems personal. I think I need an apology. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How's this as a compromise: Except for the timeline, GE debates, and the general election article, there aren't any left that needs major revision. The people who are doing the GE debates are doing an excellent job, and there's no reason for me to interfere. The GE article itself, won't need any real revisions until Election day. and there's no real reason to go near there since it will be primarily be the tabulations of the popular results and their analysis. As to the inaugural article, I'll leave it alone for the time being, although I think it's a bad idea. If Trump accepts a Biden win (or vice versa) then there won't be any need for any revision at all. Tartan doesn't go after me and I won't complain about them. Live and let live. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please just stop harassing me with your endless, baseless accusations. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Tartan357's kind link, we have the letter of the law" on this particular subject I quote:

"Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."

A perfect example of this sort of thing is deliberately replacing pictures with ones All knew were objectionable to a certain party (me)

Another quote from the "letter of the law" on the subject:

A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page.

An example of this is very thread, albeit this isn't "numerous" yet. . Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arglebargle79: please provide evidence Tartan has ever given you a questionable warning. AFAICT, they have only given you 2 warnings both of which seem reasonable. One back in June for edit warring. Another a day or 2 ago for no original research. Both of these seem to have been reasonable warnings. Please also provide evidence that Tartan357 is changing images to target you. I don't give a flying flip how much you hate an image nor that Tartan is aware of your hate. What we need is evidence the change is an action targeted at you. Finally, I think you're missing my main point anyway. I wasn't really intending to comment on whether harassment had occurred initially. My point was that you couldn't have it both ways. Either you can accuse the editor of harassment and triggering you, or you can say the editor should have politely and civil discussion the reasons for the changes before coming to ANI. You can't accuse someone of harassment etc then turn it around and say but wait, they shouldn't have come here since they should have just politely discussed their changes despite my accusations. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this further, I probably wouldn't have give you a NOR warning for the small number of edits Tartan357 reverted here [170]. As I articulated on your talk page, your editing was problematic since you provided no references so whether the inclusion of these items is justified is not something we can actually check from any sources since there are none. You cannot ask people to check out other articles. That said, removing the 2020 Republican National Convention protests from that list, even given a lack of direct citations, was a bit weird.

However while the specific example Tartan357 chose was perhaps not the best example to challenge you on NOR, you have had significant problems with OR in the past. This version of the 2021 United States presidential inauguration is an obvious example. Most of that content was introduced by you [171] [172]. Quite a few editors did indeed note the problems Talk:2021 United States presidential inauguration#What this article should be used for in the coming two months or so. (perma link) and [173] and [174]. While OR is not the only problem, it's definitely one of them.

I had an idea of your work there hence why I said that the NOR warning seemed justified. I don't think your going to get much sympathy for that singular warning, given the clear problems with your editing as well illustrated by the inauguration article, even if the timeline article perhaps wasn't the best example to concentrate on.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this whole sad mess is about ONE SINGLE PICTURE and that alone.

• The facts;
  • In June, I found the original consensus picture of Joe Biden changed to another one that I objected to. I found that the person had changed it to the objectionable picture pretty much throughout the series and that there was NO consensus, nor any discussion on the Same, so I changed it.
  • @Tartan357 (or someone else) changed it back. S/he insisted that it was consensus, and sent a formal complaint about me.
  • I contested the complaint and was given sanctions.
  • I tried and got a consensus on the use of a different photo in the Democratic convention page.
  • I posted a chart on that page using the consensus picture of Biden. I was under no obligation to use the objectionable picture. No one objected.
  • A week or so later, @Tartan357 changed the picture on the chart to the objectionable one. (see the above quote on harassment)
  • I changed it BACK.
  • @Tartan357 complained and succeeded in making further sanctions against me.

There was no reason for @Tartan357 to change the consensus (for that page) picture in the Chart. NONE. If s/he had decided to change it to another picture I almost certainly wouldn't have been triggered. I have asked Him/Her why s/he decided to use that particular picture and this thread is the result.

S/he also my saying that I found the picture to be personally very objectionable to attack me.

These are the facts as I see them. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arglebargle79, this really is not about the content dispute anymore; it's about your conduct. However, I will direct you yet again to my comments on the merits of the photo as you're insisting I've never provided any: Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Biden's photo. I and all other editors involved have explained ourselves well ad nauseam. Your statement that no one objected to your edit-warring is patently false: User talk:Arglebargle79#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion (2). In that discussion, you were also reminded by SecretName101 that you do not WP:OWN the content you create on Wikipedia. You created the table, but that does not mean you alone can edit it. Stop making things up. Nobody has wronged you; in fact, we've been very patient. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patient? You immediately had me sanctioned!...The link was before your chamge.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arglebargle79: Stop. That is a lie. I first warned you over your edit-warring on June 12. Your sanction was applied on August 18. Two months is not "immediate". — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 19:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This IP 162.238.56.66 just reverted one of my edits at Amiram Nir without explanation [175], and looking at the IPs contributions, I can see that one of their very few edits includes threatening another editor, User:Hipal, with the edit summary, "WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE" [176].

Furthermore, the IP's revert of my edit [177] at Amiram Nir follows not long after the same revert from a different editor: User:Jaydoggmarco (notified of this discussion here). Just a few days before the IP threatened Hipal, Jaydoggmarco had sent Hipal messages that weren't threatening, but like the IP, claimed that Hipal had a conflict of interest [178].

It's weird that this IP has repeatedly now inserted itself into edit wars to support Jaydoggmarco, considering how few edits the IP has. For instance here [179] and here [180] Jaydoggmarco reverts User:Emir of Wikipedia, is reverted, and in the middle our IP 162.238.56.66 arrives to make the same revert as Jaydoggmarco [181].

Anyway, I apologize Jaydoggmarco if this is coincidence, but this is a little unusual. And at the least the IP's threat is out of line. -Darouet (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging User:RexxS, since you notified [182] Jaydoggmarco that as of July, they are restricted from editing on topics related to American politics post-1932 for a period of six months... but just one month later, in August, they've been reverting [183] text related to possible CIA involvement in the 1984 killing of US DEA agent Kiki Camarena, and is arguing on the talk page there [184] (where you can see I'm also involved). Am I misunderstanding this restriction? -Darouet (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is slander, The ip isn't me and that edit on Amiram Nir appears to be from weeks ago, Also Hipal has been accused by others of having a conflict of interest. [185] [186] The Kiki article doesn't have the discretionary sanctions alert that the Karlie Kloss one has. I find this grasping at straws to slander me instead debating on the sourcing repulsive. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People in bad faith and without evidence accuse others of many things. Don't take the bait. It puts you in a very bad light. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The presence, or lack thereof, of the DS alert has nothing to do with your ability to edit the article. You are banned from any article in or relating to the topic area, period. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 13:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined to act in this instance, without prejudice to another admin taking action. I have left a serious warning, advising Jaydoggmarco not to test the boundaries of their topic ban. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Check-the-text and User:Check article here are thanking edits by any registered users in certain time frames to controversial articles. I've found blocks of revision histories for Michael Flynn, Christchurch mosque shootings, and various COVID-19 related articles where every editor was thanked. They're probably related to User:Looktheinfo, who was blocked as WP:NOTHERE. None of the accounts have any edits, just hundreds of thank-yous: [187] [188] [189].Citing (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And add User:LookArticThis to the list [190].Citing (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This type of behavior is usually related to an editor's effort to get extended confirmed protection rights, so they can edit highly controversial articles subject to disruption, pushing some POV. Good faith new editors will make useful NPOV comments on the talk pages, and make useful, productive edits to other articles, even if closely related. But gaming the system by making rapid unproductive edits to get a user status is behavior that is not productive. Let's take a closer look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just using the thank function without actually editing is unusual behavior but not unknown. It does not count toward ECP, as far as I know, but maybe it is an attempt to "buddy up" to editors in a certain topic area in advance, to soften scrutiny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I'm certain of are Alicia Kozakiewicz (revisions immediately before 921924565 were thanked by User:LookArticThis), Anna Popova (all revisions thanked by User:Check-the-text), Michael Flynn (several chunks probably, e.g. the ~100 edits immediately before 955621374 were thanked by Check-the-text, maybe the others too). There's some overlap between the accounts being created/active and they seem to work in short bursts of a few minutes spread by a few days.Citing (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added those three articles to my watchlist and encourage other editors to do so. Burst of editing is commonplace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ser-rod-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2 previous ANI reports, 2 prior blocks, 9 final warnings (I didn't bother adding another) and the unsourced edits continue. On top of that, no effort has been made to communicate with concerned editors on their talk page. It's really starting to look like they're not here to contribute constructively and a longer block may be needed. Robvanvee 17:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef's them for WP:NOTHERE. That's a long list of final warnings, multiple blocks already 2 this year in fact. Enough's enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly! Much appreciated RickinBaltimore. Robvanvee 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute started when User:The-Pope violated WP:DTR by leaving a message meant for new editors on my talk page.diff He then proceeded to make edits to Damian Barrett, completely restructuring the page on the grounds that it did not adhere to WP:UNDUE diff. I disagreed with his changes and reverted him, though I still implemented some of the changes. He proceeded to revert the edit back, a violation of WP:BRD, and in the process also violated the rules around Rollback only being used in cases of vandalism or disruptive editing. diff I reverted him back, on the basis that per BRD he needed to gain consensus for the changes, and left a message on his talk page asking if we could work things out by discussing them.diff He then proceeded to reply by accusing me of vandalism, and failing to converse in any meaningful way, instead throwing around personal attacks and snarkily acting like he was superior to me diff. He then reverted me for a third time. diff. Quite frankly, I find the complete unwillingness to talk and the shocking pace at which he devolved into throwing out personal space to be concerning, given he is trusted with the Rollback tool. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) In my outsider opinion, both of you could use a clue adjustment. I tend to agree with The-Pope that your version of the article was not balanced and improperly weighted negative assessments of Barrett's job performance. It was literally a majority of the article and half the lede; that's not the right balance. That being said, The-Pope's tone is way off base. Wikipedia policy explicitly makes it clear that NPOV contraventions are not vandalism. Repeatedly and dismissively reverting good-faith edits guaranteed that this would end up at an admin noticeboard. If both of you could drop the stick and figure something out on a talk page, it would probably save the admins some time here. Devonian Wombat, out of deference to the BLP policy, I recommend sticking with The-Pope's version for now, and if you feel strongly about your version, take it to a proper dispute resolution noticeboard. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  1. That wasn't a template; No annoying icon, no annoying "September 2020" header, no "Welcome to Wikipedia". It is too brusque, I'll grant, based on calling it a "hitpiece", but DTR doesn't apply just because some of the words were cribbed from {{uw-npov1}}.
  2. That wasn't an abuse of rollback (there was an edit summary). Non-issue.
  3. The "bold" part was when you (User:Devonian Wombat) added material. The "revert" part is when TP reverted it. The "discuss" part wasn't started by either one of you; the talk page is still blank except for Wikiproject templates. Invoking "BRD" doesn't mean you can write whatever you want, and anyone who removes it is being "bold".
  4. You're both edit warring. DW's self-revert after seeing Jprg's comment was a solid step in the right direction.
  5. It's kind of amazing how, after all these many years, people still throw around the term "vandalism" so loosely. User:The-Pope should really stop doing that.
  6. When there's a dispute regarding a BLP, we err on the side of caution. At first glance, DW was focusing pretty hard on the negative; and putting "The Voice of Treason" as an "other name" in the infobox was not good.
  7. It seems likely that if you both can get over your annoyance with each other and discuss it on the talk page, a better article will result than if either of you tried to create it alone. That's kind of the operating assumption around here.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You can focus on the dispute, or you can focus on the BLP article as I found it, which, if WP:CSD#G10 didn't have an unsourced requirement, that would have been my first response to seeing it listed in NPP. It had a single neutral intro sentence, then nothing but attacks on the BLP subject. Sure, it had lots of references, but most of the criticism was sourced to tabloid style beat up articles. I was appalled. I modified the standard LEVEL 1 warning and left it on the article's creator's user talk page as I started to clean it up. During my clean up, in which I removed the worst of the opinion and borderline defamatory stuff and actually added an actual summary of his actual career including his many awards, not just a laundry list of feuds and criticism, I had a few edit conflicts. Was very surprised when the other editor kept removing the actual neutral article content. So, I make no apologies for improving the article from an absolute hit piece more suited to a forum/facebook post than an article here, which, I still maintain is a sneaky form of vandalism - which did last for almost a month without anyone else noticing. The-Pope (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I dropped the ball here. Aside from The-Pope's inability to understand the word "vandalism", he's right about basically everything else. In retrospect, "hit piece" was not hyperbole. And while initially saying DW's version was too negative, I under-reacted to how appalling that initial version was. @Devonian Wombat:, if that kind of thing continues, you may find yourself subject to a WP:BLP-related discretionary sanction. Once I figure out the byzantine system for leaving DS alerts, I'll post one to DW's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I see User:Woodroar already left him one on 16 August, after the initial creation of the substandard article, but before all the edit warring. Not sure if sanctions should be considered now, or (I think my preference) if this should be considered a final warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In case it matters, I left the DS warning because of this edit, where Devonian Wombat moved (but retained) a court document and added a self-published source on a BLP. Woodroar (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If a deliberate and egregious BLP violation isn't the worst type of vandalism then what is? Cluebot can pick up someone adding "poopypants" to a name or changing their weight to 800 lbs. It can't detect this. I stand by my edits. The-Pope (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one minds, I'd like to withdraw my complaint here and apologise. After having a little while to think it over, I do agree that The-Pope's version is better. I still maintain that the accusation of vandalism was uncalled for, but I can certainly see the WP:BLP problem with a good degree of the old version, and I admit I should not have reverted it, so sorry about that The-Pope. In my defense, the revert thing happened around 11pm and I posted this here around 6am, so I think I just was groggy and wasn't thinking straight. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This rant at DRN by User:217.138.33.132 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=976634989&oldid=976604525&diffmode=source ends in a legal threat, "Legal action will ensue should no actionable response be received. " Please block the IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned user about making legal threats. An admin can take care of this beyond this point. Goose^(Talk!) 04:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this day, Arunjithp has made 24 AfD nominations with no reason for nomination. I have left a complaint on his page earlier, but now find he has made 24 nominations with no reason therefore. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of few living persons without adequate support for references have been marked for deletion. The specific reason (reply to complaint left on my page) for above query will be given on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just had a look at these - none of them have rationales for deletion, and the first couple I looked at were clearly notable, including one that was a full international footballer. I'm going to be AFK for half an hour, but when I get back I will close them all as invalid unless anyone objects. Black Kite (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly disruptive, a good few when I looked are international footballer articles, that's going to be a bit of maintenance to cleanup. Although somewhat thin, the sources do indicate that a lot of these articles can be supported by the sources, so your assumption for deletion seems very floored. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the AFDs are valid, some are blatantly wrong. But the mass nomination and the lack of deletion rationale are disruptive. GiantSnowman 11:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I have seen 4 or 5 of these, and they are all international footballers for Trinidad, so meet WP:NFOOTY. Either way, AfDs without a rationale given should be speedy kept. And if you're going to try and nominate 24 articles about footballers, maybe start a discussion on WT:FOOTY first. And so far as I can see, most or all of the text in the articles is sourced, and no WP:BEFORE seems to have been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, Govvy, GiantSnowman & Joseph2302, they appear to have been questioned & warned about this by OP & also by Fram here but didn’t respond, I was about to say this was probably a new comer with competency issues but I realized they have been here for 13 years. If this is a new pattern of behavior from that user is it possible their account might be compromised or perhaps their editing device might be faulty? At this rate, yes, it is becoming disruptive. Celestina007 11:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15 nominations, not 24. But yes, this method of rapid-fire AfDs without any rationale is disruptive, and they should all be speedy closed as keep. If any individual ones have potential merit, they can be re-nominated with an actual good reason (and Arunjithp, simply looking at the sources in the article is not sufficient, you need to do a good -faith search for better sources through e.g. Google (News and Books) or whichever search mechanism you prefer). Fram (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree to speedy keep all of them; some (a minority) appear to be about non-notable individuals. I suggest we speedy keep the ones that are clearly notable (about players who have played at international level) and leave the others open for wider discussion. GiantSnowman 11:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating at AfD at a rate of 1-2 nominations every minute is evidence of lack of preparations and study of the articles nominated.--Mvqr (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have closed all of Arunjithp's recent AfDs as "speedy keep" except for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaiah Hudson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Peltier which have been endorsed by other editors. I would recommend that Arunjithp studies the advice Fram has given them carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will be adhering to advice given by Fram Arunjithp (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arunjithp, there seem to be other issues with some of your recent edits, for example this edit introduced two factual errors (Danger Man was not a “movie” but a 39 episode TV series, in which the subject of the article appeared in only one, and the second film was based on a novel by a different Tom Gill); this one made the meaning less clear. Please be more careful. Also, there’s no need to tag leads with “citation needed” where the information is sourced in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarise the information in the body. Brunton (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adding unref'd content to Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show), failing to meet WP:BURDEN. WP:EW behavior repeatedly re-adding unref'd content after reversion. WP:BATTLE attitude based upon edit summary in this revert. Blocked five times for 3RR and edit warring. AldezD (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• YNTCYE's one mainspace edit, way back in July 2017 (link), suggests a close connection to User:SoapSoapWhatIsSoap (indeffed May 2017; link), a suspected sock of User:WhenDatHotlineBling. Narky Blert (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Faysal Traoré was created by Nursultan12 on 21 August 2020 and deleted by AfD on 29 August. Nursultan12 has subsequently re-created the article on 30 August, 1 September and 4 September.[191] The recreated articles are essentially the same as the article that was deleted at AfD. --John B123 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and SALTed, which solves the issue short-term. However, there are deeper issues here that need resolving - in short, Nursultan12 is a problematic editor, has a history of creating non-notable articles, removing AFD tags, re-creating deleted articles etc. etc. I suggest a CIR indef block until they start communicating. GiantSnowman 19:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also socking as Нурсултан Андакулов (talk · contribs) (identical userpage), with overlapping edits on 2020 Uzbekistan Super League. I'll handle this as an SPI. Cabayi (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]