Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rosguill (talk | contribs) at 20:38, 7 March 2021 (→‎Propose topic ban: closing, topic ban enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page;

    pinging is not enough
    .
    You may use {{    subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Start a new discussion

    Personal attacks

    I've been trying to reach consensus on the

    talk) 20:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Please provide
    DIFFs of these personal attacks. No one is going to go wading through those talks to pick them out,. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    1. "I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand)"
    2. "Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more."
    3. "If you don't understand . . . then you may not be competent to edit this article."
    On the same page, he's accused other users of "weasel words," and posted "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like."
    talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I already addressed #1 (see below). #2 and #3 are not personal attacks. Nor is saying that someone is "adding weasel words". The final diff was a response to
    WP:FILIBUSTERing. If I am to be sanctioned, then I don't think Crossroads' combative bahavior should be left out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You were already
    WP:SATISFY you and by edit warring your "disputed" tag in [1][2] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [3] Your whataboutism doesn't help your case at all. I cautioned you against engaging in that because you already were being disruptive and you continued to do it anyway. Crossroads -talk- 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    At the time I reverted your undiscussed removal of the tag, I could count two users (
    as a poll, despite policy stating otherwise, is what's disruptive here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I reverted your tendentious addition of the tag (no tag is the default/status quo), and Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion (and their later comment also suggests that). I am very familiar with your strategy of 'it's not a vote, I'm still right', and I have addressed it below. Crossroads -talk- 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a response to my comment on the talk page saying, "If you don't understand that [X, Y, and Z] are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article", which is not a personal attack. Note that I struck an earlier comment that suggested
    editing disruptively; looking at the discussion as a whole I don't think that idea was off-base. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Following this report, Gershonmk went to the article talk page to accuse me of
    exhaust their opponents by repeating the same rejected arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Not going to defend this -- I thought better of it -- except to note that it was up for less than a minute.
    talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Sangdeboeuf has a long-term habit of

    WP:FILIBUSTER
    when not satisfied, misusing policy to suit their ends, and even attacks.

    This is very evident at the this Talk:Gina Carano discussion. BLUDGEON, IDHT, and SATISFY are all in strong evidence. Here is an especially blatant out-of-context quote of

    SATISFIED: [5] Also, this
    was still a serious personal attack on me.

    At a Talk:Transsexual discussion, the same behaviors manifest. They misrepresent their opponent's arguments ([6], [7], & [8]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [9][10] and have been uncivil. [11]

    Relatively brief discussion at Talk:Latinx where all these behaviors, as well as their obvious tendentiousness to keep out a source they don't like, are on full display. And the same IDHT, misuse of policy, tendentiousness, and FILIBUSTER are equally visible lower on the same page, where CorbieVreccan also told them to stop edit warring and

    WP:DROPTHESTICK
    early on.

    Another discussion where they POV push and purge a source and other text against consensus: [12] They, as usual, trot out

    WP:5P3 - and to dare me to take them to ANI (link to exact diff
    ).

    An uninvolved editor notes they lead a different thread on a "pointless tangent": [13]

    See their attempt to change policy in line with their peculiar philosophy and how they were rebutted here. Also see where yet another user, Mathglot, notes their wrong approach: [14]

    I'm aware I've linked to discussions, not just diffs, but the misconduct is such that a single diff often doesn't really explain it. I trust that if admins look at those discussions, they will clearly see the behaviors I've described. This user cannot be allowed to think these are acceptable behaviors and need to be clearly told what the consequences are for such editors. They are driving other editors away from their pet topics, which I suspect is the point (

    WP:OWN). Crossroads -talk- 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC) added a bit Crossroads -talk- 22:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Sangdeboeuf has also been informed of the following discretionary sanctions:

    Crossroads -talk- 22:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [20][21] This one was very nearly a violation: [22]

    At ANI previously, was warned about edit warring and disruptive tagging. Crossroads -talk- 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Crossroads' complaints about my "misusing" policy are debatable to say the least. I suspected they have had a
    WP:GRUDGE against me for some time, but the speed with which they were able to collect all the above "evidence" suggests they have a bona fide obsession. Not healthy IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This comes off as a personal attack as well, Sangdeboeuf. As for your questioning Gershonmk's competence, from
    WP:BLPSPS, insisting that self-published sources are not allowed, but they are not automatically rejected by policy, merely to be avoided. For another instance, you never did explain to me how my proposed edit were weasel words, simply linked to them and asserted that they were. They aren't, but it would be great if you made a case for it. Is it possible to move the discussion forward over there without acrimony? Rendall (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The relevant part of BLPSPS was quoted at
    content dispute anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    While true on its face, this is an ambiguous case, so indeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding. Substack is a new phenomena, but you have decided it is a "personal blog". The article in question is by a professional journalist and the subject willingly participated in the interview, but you have decided it is "self-published". The list of acceptable versus unacceptable does not include this situation (
    WP:USINGSPS notes only as Unacceptable Someone's personal blog about his neighbor, business partner, or friend.), but you have decided that there should be no discussion. You could ultimately be right, but your language around disagreement is tendentious. This can be discussed amiably without the language described above. Rendall (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No, there is nothing ambiguous about it - Substack does not exercise meaningful editorial or content control and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is akin to a content management system, not a newspaper or magazine. Anything published in a Substack newsletter is the self-published opinion of the author, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is nothing ambiguous about it The topic at hand is personal attacks. Regardless of what you and I and Sangdeboeuf think, personally about Substack, consensus is blocked by such language. Rendall (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I already responded on the talk page to show that Rendall is wrong about USINGSPS. I'll just say that ignoring the clear wording of a policy because an
    Wikilawyering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    [I]ndeed "never" can mean "sometimes" your interpretation notwithstanding – Don't know what to say to this blatant attempt at
    gaslighting except maybe "Do you even English bro?" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Gershonmk, I'm not seeing personal attacks. Crossroads, your evidence doesn't seem strong. DS alerts are not a sign of wrongdoing and those are stale disagreements with no clear infringement. If admins decided to resolve edit warring using page protection and discussion rather than sanctions, then I defer to their judgement. Fences&Windows 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Really? Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like [23] is not a personal attack? This [24] much like this [25] is not blatant twisting of policy? To name but a tiny bit of the evidence presented. And DS alerts, seriously? I clearly presented those to show the user is aware of the discretionary sanctions, not as evidence. 'It's stale' is refusal to recognize a pattern, and that and the DS comment makes me think you didn't even look at most of the evidence. By that logic, no one can ever be warned or sanctioned for behavior patterns since it takes time to accumulate evidence of a pattern. Why do we even have pages like
    WP:LISTEN and accept that they are not the sole guardian and interpreter of policy. Crossroads -talk- 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It's no more a personal attack than Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this either on this talk page or with their tag they keep edit warring in. [26] I note that Crossroads' concerns about edit warring at Gina Carano don't seem to extend to their own behavior: [27][28] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More whataboutism and false equivalence. Anyone can see what happened there. And reverting one person blanking a paragraph built by multiple people is quite different than filibustering a quote with a tag and claiming someone never gave a reason to include the quote when they did. Crossroads -talk- 22:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, "my reasons are obviously justified, so it's not edit warring when I do it". Now why didn't I think of that earlier? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF. Is it such a surprise that Sangdeboeuf would be a bit short with someone who approaches them like that? --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • You are overgeneralizing. I do assume good faith for you and others; however, having good intentions or doing good editing some or most of the time is not an excuse for misbehavior at other times. Such misbehavior needs to be warned against, not tolerated and hence encouraged. And what my point about AGF is in nonetheless in agreement with
      WP:AGF: Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • I'm not really seeing how this is a blatant twisting of policy - it's a debatable point, but that's pretty much the standard argument that comes up over quotes. And the 3RR violations you cited are from literally years apart; part of the reason stale evidence isn't accepted is because otherwise any longtime editor would accumulate violations - that is, less than one 3RR violation a year obviously isn't a really meaningful pattern, even before you dig into the context of each report (did you read the discussion here, which explains in detail what happened and why the page was protected? Page protection is a common outcome for a 3RR report when the underlying issue is extensive disruption or a broad dispute.) Most of the other diffs you list are similar - arguments from years apart with no clear violations in them. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the standard argument; nobody in good faith thinks that V and NOR are saying that quotes shouldn't be included even though
      WP:CLEANHANDS indeed. Almost all of what I presented including the edit warring was from since 2019, and the 3RR violations were less than a year apart. As Wikipedia does far too often, though, POV pushing is enabled depending on what POV is being pushed. Crossroads -talk- 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Regarding the quote matter, the context disagrees with this narrative. Crossroads -talk- 04:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this is actually a perfect example of the problem here. An editor not involved in that dispute makes a report and the admin pretty blatantly takes Sangdeboeuf's side in the dispute by denying that Sangdeboeuf did anything wrong in violating 3RR and accepting their lame excuses. And this same admin lets Sangdeboeuf off the hook again when Sangdeboeuf violates 3RR at the same article a year later: [30] This is a perfect example of how on Wikipedia some misbehavior is more tolerated than others depending on who did it or for what POV. And I say this as someone who thinks that many of their edits there were "correct"; but that is not an excuse for edit warring. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We could add this to the list. I don't think language like this is necessary: [[40]] "Do you even English Bro?" Rendall (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Preservedmoose

    An attempt to have a calm, constructive discussion with Preservedmoose resulted randomly in a barrage of attacks by the latter towards me. Mind you, he is yet to show proof for ANY of these accusations, heavily violating

    WP:ASPERSIONS
    and whatnot;

    Your name is History of Iran...perhaps I should accuse you of violating these protocols, considering you go through numerous pages on Wikipedia and selectively add/control what information fits your prerogative. Yes--a journalist from Daily Sabah is supporting a nationalist Armenian perspective. None of the sources that I provided are from Armenians. One is Turkish,one is from the UK government. One is from the EU. You are not the king of Wikipedia.

    You're accusing me of pushing an agenda. Your name is HistoryOfIran, your main interest is ancient Iranian history, and you edit articles to minimize certain other cultures at the expense of a Pro-Iranian narrative (such as this one).

    Well, no, they are. You're accusing me of pushing an agenda. I'm using that as an example of you being selective and loose with your criticisms--precisely what you are accusing me of.

    You initially accused me, with no explanation, of pushing an agenda for providing reliable, non-Armenian sources that suggest an Armenian presence/influence in Commagene. You're repeatedly pushing a pro-Iranian narrative here and on other articles (for example, the Orontid dynasty) at the expense of sources mentioning Armenians and other groups and then you repeatedly accuse and threaten people who add these sources.

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Kingdom_of_Commagene, and instead accused me of removing sources, pushing an agenda, providing bad sources, and threatened to get admins involved. User has a history of such behavior. I also suggested moving beyond said argument if HistoryofIran could provide reasons for removing my sources. HistoryofIran neglected to do so. HistoryofIran instead accused me of "still going off on" user, said any edits would be a continuation of an edit war, said "I don't want to help a person who is being rather hostile towards me learn the basics of Wikipedia" and continued to refuse to provide rational for behavior or removal of sources--"This discussion is over." User has done this on other pages as well, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orontid_dynasty#Uncertain_origins_of_Orontids_needs_to_be_addressed (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I rest my case ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is what I'm doing any different from what you are doing, besides the removal of verifiable sources, which I did not do but you did (although you oddly accused me of doing this--actually, this is what started the argument)? You baselessly accused me of pushing an agenda, but when I accused you, you got upset and reported me. It seems like rules and etiquette apply to others but not you.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't remove a reliable source? What's this then? [42] So let me get you right, because I said you were removing a reliable source, apparently that means I accused you of pushing an agenda? How does that make any sense? And if it did, does that give you a free pass to attack me? I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more diffs in relation to userPreservedmoose:
    1. Removed seven
      WP:RS sources that show that a king of Armenia was Zoroastrian. No edit summary/explanation.[43]
    2. Removed "Greco-Iranian" and changed it into "Hellenized Armenian". No edit summary/explanation.[44] The source he added is written Carole Radatto, an amateur photographer, who has no academic degrees in history or whatsoever.[45]
    Looking at the evidence, it appears that user:Preservedmoose is persistently trying to
    here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    On 2 May 2020, user:Biainili posted on his talk page what articles need "improvement", asking Preservedmoose to do these "improvements". Specifically mentioning Kingdom of Commagene and Tigran the Great(These parts especially: "Mother: Alan princess[2]", "Religion: Zoroastrianism[3]").

    On 15 April 2020‎, user:Biainili removed Zoroastrian and references from Tigran the Great, oddly Preservedmoose on 30 January 2021, removes Zoroastrian and references from Tigran the Great. Proxy editing? Even more telling is the talk page discussion that Preservedmoose seems to have missed completely!

    User:Biainili also goes into detail about Urartu. Guess who has been editing Urartu? Pinging C.Fred, who warned Biainili of proxy editing and El C who also warned against proxy editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the ping, Kansas Bear, but I'm afraid I'm unable to draw an immediate connection between the two users, though this is only at a glance. El_C 18:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I do lurk around ANI. I'm for a block of Preserved Moose, and possibly a sockpuppet investigation if Biainili continues to act like preserved moose. Overall though, at least a month long block of preserved moose for personal attacks in the form of/and accusations of POV, where the community determines there isn't POV. 4D4850 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    4D4850, I've seen you 'disclose' that you're not an administrator a few times on this board. No worries; there's no need to do that. Everyone is invited to contribute, express their opinion, as well as propose (or oppose) what they think are appropriate actions to deal with problematic editing on this board. This is the "Administrators' Noticeboard", but it exists so that members of the community can get the attention of admins as well as the wider community, and seek administrator intervention on behalf of the project. With very few exceptions, at the end of the day, it's the community itself that decides what's appropriate and acceptable, including whether administrator actions are themselves appropriate. Yes, admins can [often] act unilaterally and impose sanctions using their best discretion, but they're ultimately just editors themselves, but who are also entrusted (by the community) with certain tools to protect the project, and help keep Wikipedia ticking. So like I said, you don't need to announce your non-admin status when posting a comment (everyone can see your user rights as well, if they wish; I don't think anyone will be confused as to whether you're an admin). Just letting you know. :) Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Symmachus Auxiliarus: Ok, I just want people to know that I'm not one of the people provided with admin powers. I know I don't need to, but I also don't want people to confuse me with an admin up front due to throwing policy around (typically, I find personal attacks by the reported or the OP, and support blocks of the personal attacker.) I just think it's something people should know. Sorry if it clutters up ANI. 4D4850 (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preservedmoose clearly has a pro-Armenian agenda, and is resorting to personal attacks rather than rational arguments. Perhaps his/her recent edits require scrutiny. I am not certain whether HistoryOfIran is right in emphasizing the Iranian influence on Commagene, but he/she is at least attempting to seek a resolution through the talk page. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban/block proposal

    Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to Armenia and Iran for Preservedmoose. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am willing to support a block as well as the persistent violations of
    WP:NPA are simply unacceptable. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Support block It's warranted by the behavior. ~ HAL333 18:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, evidence presented indicates proxy editing for banned editor Biainili.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban, not block - Preservedmoose's use of ad hominem in discussions is reason enough to be kept away from sensitive topics for some time, but I didn't spot anything that warrants a total block from editing (assuming that there isn't a sockpuppeting issue). signed, Rosguill talk 06:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban as per the above evidences.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    David Gerard and Scott Siskind

    On

    Fourteen words. Rather than contest that he had called Scott Siskind (the blog's author) a Neo-Nazi, David Gerard tried to justify his comment and even repeated the "14 words" allusion. There seem to be clear pro and anti editors involved in the talk page discussions so some friction is expected, but I find this David Gerard's comments about a living person unacceptable. Mo Billings (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I urge all to read the linked discussion, and the following section.
    A group of editors, including Mo Billings, who appear to be fans of the subject, are claiming a COI that doesn't fit any requirement of
    WP:COI
    , and keep not putting together any complaint in a proper form, preferring to cast aspersions.
    One has raised an off-wiki tweet. In the course of the existing discussion, I have linked an email from 2014 from the author of the blog, in which he literally says he is an advocate of "human biodiversity" and wishes to use the blog to propagate this going forward - not yet in an RS so not usable on the article, but arguably supporting my off-wiki tweeted summary of the author's views with the author's own words.
    Not that an off-wiki tweet is a
    WP:COI
    at Wikipedia, and Mo Billings should understand this. We have a group of Slate Star Codex fans who seem to think not being a fan constitutes a COI, and editors of opposing views should be voted off the article.
    There is also an effort to get non-RSes into the article.
    Various editors casting aspersions, including Mo Billings, have been asked to properly substantiate their claims of COI in the accepted manner, or stop casting aspersions. Instead, they have continued casting aspersions - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I am not a fan of Slate Star Codex. I have no particular interest in it. I am not a contributor there. I am not even a reader of the blog (although I did read some pieces of Siskind's earlier work because of a dispute about including his name in the article here). My two edits to the COI discussion are this and this. I have already stated that David Gerard's involvement did not constitute a COI based on our guidelines. This ANI discussion is about his specific comments about Scott Siskind in that discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're claiming a COI, but not a COI per policy? That is literally
    WP:ASPERSIONS, surely? - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No, I'm not. I am reporting that you called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Please stop trying to deflect from the issue. Mo Billings (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It turns out I'm allowed to have off-wiki opinions about article subjects, including that the scientific racism advocate who sought out scientific racists for his blog and was famous for his prolixity could be summarised as "why say in a million words what you can say in 14" - and that this has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and does not constitute any sort of COI, either in Wikipedia terms or in colloquial terms, and that you're making a bizarre claim saying it does - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The allegation by Mo Billings notes that you have defended these allegations on Wikipedia, so this is not about your off-wiki behavior Aapjes (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    David, it seems clear that you have a COI, per
    WP:BLPCOI. You've acted as a source for a newspaper about this person, and tweeted about him. Now you're writing about him on WP, using that newspaper article as a source and removing criticism of it. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I was one of many sources, and not even one that rated naming. I was asked to comment as an expert on the LessWrong subculture, and you can read
    WP:COI on subject-matter experts as well as I can: Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. And no, I have no financial interest in the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That's not what's meant by subject-matter expert. You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 (that's based on a five-second Google search, so maybe longer). See
    WP:BLPCOI, which is policy: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki— ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest". SarahSV (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    See above. None of this is a Wikipedia COI, or even a colloquial COI. Your argument comes down to a claim that non-fans of a subject should not be allowed to edit an article about the subject, and you know that's never been the case at Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been tweeting negatively about this person since at least June 2020 - I'm concerned about the precedent you're proposing to set here. I don't think "has tweeted negatively about someone" constitutes a significant controversy or dispute in the context of BLPCOI, and I'm fairly certain that that's not how the policy was understood when it was drafted and approved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly get that argument from the cryptocurrency spammers, who seem to sincerely think that if you're not an advocate you shouldn't be allowed to talk about their favourite thing 'cos that's a conflict of interest - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And the obvious extension of this concept would be that anyone who tweeted positively about this person must also now have a conflict of interest and be prohibited from editing the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note here, I'm the editor who most recently brought up an apparent COI on the article talk page, and I realized now that I handled it incorrectly and acted in a way more like casting aspersion than I intended (I thought I was handling it correctly but realize now that I misread the guidelines on handling COIs). Gbear605 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now one of those discussions that are going across the wiki. Here's the RSN section: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reason_and_WaPo_on_NYT_on_Slate_Star_Codex - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're talking to the New York Times as a source on a subject, you should probably find something else to edit.

    π, ν) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    NYT is rated Generally Reliable at
    WP:RSP, and has consistently been found to be a top-tier source. It's not perfect, but your claim is almost entirely incorrect in the context of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You missed my point completely. There are 6 million articles on this project, and you appear to have a conflict of interest on one of them. This one. Why not avoid it? It's fine for Wikipedia editors to be part of the news -- but they should edit other topics. Whether or not the Times is "Generally Reliable" isn't at all relevant here; and I can comment on RSP elsewhere.
    π, ν) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Last I checked, Wikipedia wanted topic experts to stick around, and nowhere have I seen any indication that David Gerard has used Wikipedia to continue any dispute. It's weird how often Wikipedia editors confuse NPOV with being conflict-averse, and that seems like the only plausible reason to invoke WP:BLPCOI. There is not "interest" here. We all have opinions. Being open about those opinions is not some unforgivable sin. Responding to people about those opinions on some other website is not an inherently bad thing. Having people point-out that someone has an opinion is not a valid way to disqualify that person. Good lord, what kind of precedent would that set? Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    On both the

    WP:RS to support this allegation. I think that this is another instance where David Gerard made an unacceptable personal attack on a living person, who is not here to defend himself. Aapjes (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The NYT article is, of course, support for this claim, as I noted on the talk page at length, also citing the SSC article the NYT linked as their evidence for the claim - David Gerard (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT article doesn't claim that Siskind is a Neo-Nazi or a supporter of "scientific racism" (which is not the same thing, anyway). You argued that the part on Murray proves this, but the NYT article only makes the vague assertion that Siskind aligned himself with Charles Murray, but doesn't say how. Surely this cannot be interpreted as a claim that Murray and Siskind have identical beliefs on all topics, which would be an absurd claim to make about two different people. If you follow the link they provide, he only did so on class differences, not racial differences. The page on Murray also merely claims that one of his works, The Bell Curve, has been accused of supporting "scientific racism", not that it is an established fact, or that any of his many other publications have been accused of such. The blog post by Siskind that the NYT article uses as evidence also makes no mention of The Bell Curve.
    On the topic of Siskind, you seem to believe that we should treat highly contentious claims as fact, without any need for proper
    WP:RS to support those claims. In general, you seem to have far, far lower standards of proof for allegations against Siskind than for other claims. Aapjes (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Not for nothin' or nothin', but I still haven't seen any diffs of on wiki edits that would require sanctions. Last I checked, tweets shouldn't be used for evidence for on wiki sanctions unless it's coupled with poor wiki editing. See above where NedFausa got banned because of poor BLS editing AND tweets that showed they were on a mission to disparage the person they're editing here. I don't see that in this case. Nor do I agree there's a COI just because someone has made known on a non wiki website their opinion of someone. IF David Gerard never tweeted would anyone notice through their wiki editing that they would have those opinions? Valeince (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The
    WP:COIN
    .
    This is an effort by fans of the article subject to vote non-fans off the article - David Gerard (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I started this discussion and I started it for one reason alone - your "14 words" comments. You can try to to frame this as something else if you like, but I have no particular interest in that blog, its supporters, or its enemies. This is about your actions. Mo Billings (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valeince: I linked it above, but I will quote here: Siskind has literally admitted 14 words in one million was his strategy for SSC. David Gerard called Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi, here, on Wikipedia. How is that not sanctionable? Mo Billings (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mo Billings:The phrase “Neo-Nazi” does not appear in that diff so I think you need to retract that statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: I believe uninvolved editors will have no difficulty understanding what David Gerard was saying with his "14 words" reference. He was calling Scott Siskind a Neo-Nazi. Feel free to ask David Gerard what he meant if you have trouble seeing that. Mo Billings (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am an uninvolved editor, I had no edits anywhere related to this subject before stumbling across this discussion. He may certainly have been implying that but he does not actually appear to have said the exact words you said he said... Implying may still be an issue, but you not sticking to reality when describing the actions of another editor is also an issue. Again I suggest you re-write the claims you’re making to more accuracy reflect reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You should also note that I agree on your larger point, it might swim in a pond, have feathers, quack like a duck look like a duck smell like a duck have 100% duck DNA, shit duck shit, lay duck eggs, but unless multiple WP:RS call it a duck we need to avoid doing so in any wikispace (all assuming that BLP applies to this duck of course). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, no criteria or cautions laid out at

    WP:BLPCOI have been met. Neither the "avowed rival bit or what a "reasonable person" would consider a conflict-of-interest, per footnote "E". Editors are allowed to have opinions, even strong ones about a subject. Unless an actual edit on-Wiki can be presented as problematic, this filing is devoid of merit. Zaathras (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Where, exactly, is the evidence that he is continuing a dispute on Wikipedia? He can say whatever he wants on his blog and twitter, but for this to apply here, there has to be a direct connection to on-Wikipedia behavior. No more vagueness. Explain it with diffs. If you cannot, or cannot be bothered, don't throw this out as if it were a vote. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPCOI says Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. DG has been involved in a significant controversy or dispute with the blogger who writes the Slate Star Codex blog, and thus should not edit material about that person such as the article Slate Star Codex (where he is #1 editor by edits). This is a no-brainer. Levivich harass/hound 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It's more of a no-evidencer. Supply on-wiki diffs that you consider show this, and how - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It says whether on or off wiki. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am curious, can you use a source that's looped to a wikipedia editor from a wikipedia article? Sounds like some kind of loop back. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes and no, and it depends on the subject. A subject matter expert who happens to be a wikipedia editor being quoted/interviewed/published in a reliable source is useable. Albeit its frowned upon if they do it themselves. It comes up a lot with academics who want to use themselves as sources, and then get annoyed when we come back "Come and talk to us when you get published." On the wider issue, I am also of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI regarding Siskind here. If you are acting as a source for off-wiki newspapers on a topic, tweeting negatively (and frankly, I would also apply it even if it was positively) about that subject, you shouldnt necessarily be prevented from editing the article but you should certainly not be throwing around accusations of a living person being a neo-nazi. If they are a neo-nazi and reliable sources back that up, plenty of other editors are available to do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This implies I have stated that in the article, which I absolutely have not. However, this is about me expressing an opinion in a tweet, rather than in article space - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I really dont care if you express it by fucking carrier pigeon. That you use off-wiki methods of denigrating people because you are prohibited from doing so on-wiki is not a plus point in your favour. If you want to off-wiki indulge in your freedom to express your opinions, you dont also get to on-wiki pretend that they dont matter. Freedom of expression is not freedom of consequences when on-wiki policies clearly state off-wiki actions will be considered. Why dont you tell everyone how you lost your CU rights after posts on your blog? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This proceeding feels like nonsense on stilts.

    Countervailing strong opinions on an article topic are standard on Wikipedia. It has never been the case at Wikipedia that strong opinions on an article subject preclude editing on the subject. As NorthBySouthBaranof notes, this would presumably preclude fans from editing also.

    Such a precedent would launch off-wiki stalking of editors, giving their opponents incentive to comb through their social media in an attempt to impeach them by any means possible.

    The claim is that a tweeted off-wiki opinion on the author of the blog that's the article subject is overwhelming evidence of a

    WP:BLPCOI
    .

    The tweeted opinion is not backed to Wikipedia RS standards of independent third-party coverage, but it's entirely unclear why an off-wiki opinion needs to be - because it is indeed backed by primary sources by the subject, including his own direct admissions as to his views (which I pointed out, though I did not link them), and I'd think that's enough for someone to tweet an opinion that has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

    This is being leveraged into a claim that I should not be allowed to edit an article on the subject - even though all my edits on the matter have been in accordance with

    WP:RS
    , including defending the article from inclusion of unreliable sources.

    (In fact, it is being claimed that explaining my tweet on the talk page when directly asked to explain it is a violation of BLP.)

    I don't believe my opinions and knowledge of the article subject constitute a

    WP:BLPCOI
    , and I don't believe that the evidence has been offered to claim one.

    I think my editing record on the article shows that I can separate opinions from what constitutes good Wikipedia sourcing. Despite repeated requests, no-one has offered evidence that I have not edited in such a way. No drastic actions, considerable talk page discussion.

    I'm open to a substantiated case otherwise, but it's repeatedly not being substantiated - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • You know what you wrote and that it wasn't just one tweet or even just limited to Twitter. Anyone can post a collection of quotes of things you've said about the blogger and other living people like the blog's readers, but really won't you just agree to avoid this topic? There are six million other articles as has been pointed out. It would be better if this ended with you taking the feedback on board and making a voluntary commitment. Levivich harass/hound 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't addressing what I said, I don't think it 's too much to ask that you do so in making such a request - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not here to play rhetorical games with you. You know what you wrote about this person. You know what BLPCOI says. Either you comply with BLPCOI or you don't. If I have to take the time to gather quotes and post them here, it's coming with a TBAN proposal. I don't need to spend time proving to you what you wrote on your own social media or blog, nor do I need to quote BLPCOI to you again. So you decide whether you want to have the community continue to investigate this matter or if you want to take the feedback you've received here on board (you have a COI) and act accordingly (don't edit the article). Levivich harass/hound 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm involved in a small content dispute with David Gerard, so take that into account. But it seems to me that if you're a source on a story about a subject, you're not independent of that particular story, and should not be involved in editorial decisions involving how that story is used at WP. Since David Gerard has stated that he is a source for a recent NYT story about Slate Star Codex, I think he therefore should not be involved in making decisions about that particular story, such as removing criticism of it from the article, as he did here. And he probably shouldn't be involved in discussion of whether the published criticisms of that story are reliable, as he has been here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fair enough not to edit directly re: the NYT article, actually - so sure. Though discussion of it is another matter - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ArbCom very clearly stated in the 2018 Philip Cross/George Galloway case that "An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest." (spryde also noted the relevance of that case) David Gerard, you are likewise involved in a controversy/dispute with Siskind/Slate Star Codex, so you should refrain from editing about this subject. Please re-read that ArbCom case because it is a closely analagous situation. Fences&Windows 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On due contemplation, and with my respect for Levivich, he's right. I shan't edit Slate Star Codex going forward - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can we discuss your on-wiki comments about Scott Siskind now? Mo Billings (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What do you mean? David has agreed to not edit that page going forward. His problematic behaviour is hopefully over, move on now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see an acknowledgement that the "14 words" comment (and his suggestions here about Siskind supporting
    WP:BLP and will not be repeated. I note that David Gerard has made no agreement not to edit the talk page so the question of his comments on Siskind is far from a dead issue. Mo Billings (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It's important to stress again that David is prohibited by
    WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person given the potential conflict of interest" (bold added). SarahSV (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind"? Mo Billings (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It is false to say that he is "active" in the talk page discussion. He hasn't edited the talk page in a week. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Gerard edited the talk page on 21 February and ceased editing shortly after, although he did make a single edit on 22 February. I assume he is dealing with real life concerns. This discussion should stay open until David Gerard has the chance to reply here. Mo Billings (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A comment thread from 2017 on David Gerard’s editing of the LessWrong article is highly relevant to this discussion, as well as another more recent thread. — Mark Otaris (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiousity, is this a matter for ARBCOM to consider perhaps removing David Gerard's tools? Admins have been desysoped for less in the past, and loss of the community's confidence is definitely a problem for any admin. I can't imagine anything less conducive to cultivating trust in the project than a long-term violation of the BLP policy. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 06:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrxBrx: I was wondering the same thing, and tend to agree that arbcom consideration is amply warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose topic ban

    There appears to be sufficient consensus for a community topic-ban of David Gerard from editing about Scott Siskind, broadly construed. While there was some opposition, largely on the grounds that David's voluntary commitment to stay away from
    WP:AN. signed, Rosguill talk 20:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    It appears that the consensus of the community is that David Gerard should not write anything anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind. It also appears that David Gerard does not agree and will not stop voluntarily. I propose a community-imposed topic ban on the topic of Scott Siskind, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment a few weeks later, now that support !votes aren't being badgered: as David Gerard would say, read this as the strongest version of its statements. (And I'm not sure I'd mind an Arbcom case.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - (I have a major COI with respect to this dispute due to my employment by LessWrong, so skip this bullet if you'd rather not be influenced by my opinion here.) David Gerard's commitment not to edit the [Slate_Star_Codex] article is substantially narrower than the proposed topic-ban would be, which is in turn narrower than the topic-ban I (in my COI'ed opinion) think would be appropriate. If you follow links from the
      Effective_Altruism, and AI_safety - you will find that David Gerard has edited all of them. While those edits have been within the rules as far as I know, they've all been in the direction of making those pages more negative, and off-wiki evidence shows he has a broad grudge. (Specifically, his comments in Reddit's SneerClub, his tweets, and his edits on the corresponding pages on RationalWiki. You don't need to dig; just find his account on one of these platforms, and about half of his total comments will be criticism of SlateStarCodex, LessWrong, or something affiliated with one of these.) Jimrandomh (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • @Jimrandomh: I think you're raising a valid point. The topic ban proposal is indeed too narrow, and should be expanded. David should not edit on those subjects and of course neither should you, if you do. Topic bans should be applied to all editors with any real life connection to the subject matter of those articles, with the exception of the exemptions allowed by BLP for subjects of articles. For the benefit of those of us unfamiliar with the subject , can you please suggest how such a topic ban should be defined? Coretheapple (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      Effective_Altruism and AI_safety. (struck to avoid risk of undue weight on COI-ed opinion, see below) Jimrandomh (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    @Jimrandomh: OK. I just thought there might be a more succinct way of describing the topic ban. I see that David is with us and chooses not to respond further on this. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coretheapple: How about "Pages linked from the templates at the bottom of the LessWrong article as of 2021/03/02"? That's pretty succinct, and I think matches his "tendrils that branched from LessWrong.com" description pretty well (and does include Slate_Star_Codex). (struck to avoid risk of undue weight on COI-ed opinion, see below) Jimrandomh (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While David's behavior has been unprofessional, this is at least as much of a COI as he had; it is a little disconcerting for an employee of an organization to opine on proposals (however justified) for people to be banned from editing articles about the organization, and I would recommend @Jimrandomh: strike his comment. jp×g 21:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      WP:PSCOI links to the admin noticeboard in the "steps for engagement" section. That said, I'm not a Wikipedia-rules expert, and I wouldn't want undue weight placed on my phrasing, so I've struck both of the comments I wrote which had specific proposals (while leaving the top-level comment with observations and the original COI disclosure, but no proposals, as-is.) Jimrandomh (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    @Jimrandomh: You have an admitted COI, which you state upfront, and were providing information which of course people are free to contest. I can understand why you struck out your comment, but it was useful and I don't think obscuring its visibility was necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the looks of it, the /r/SneerClub subreddit is devoted to mocking/joshing LessWrong, the "Intellectual Dark Web" and topics in between. If you look up someone's comments there, of course most of their total comments will be criticism of SlateStarCodex, LessWrong, or something affiliated with one of these. That's what the subreddit is for. If you look up what a person posts to /r/philately, you'll find them talking about stamps. This seems a weirdly self-affirming way to conclude that a person has a "grudge" — and, in turn, a grudge would not be the same thing as a COI.
      talk) 23:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Participation in the subreddit was presumably a choice. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure. But it's only one of several subreddits which a quick perusal shows he actively participates in, just like his Twitter feed is full of various topics and he's edited a variety of topics over at RationalWiki. I'm hardly seeing the kind of unhealthy obsession that was being implied above, where his description of a subreddit's general and vaguely-delimited area of interest was somehow transmuted into the scope of his grudge. For me, this is all coming uncomfortably close to banning an editor from a half-dozen articles because that editor was knowledgable enough that the New York Times sought them out for comment. There's a leap being made from "having expressed opinions" to "being involved in a controversy" and thus to "having a COI" which I'm finding increasingly difficult to follow, and even if I go that far, the sanction proposed seems way out of proportion.
      talk) 06:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Brush with (potential) impropriety
    • No, I'm saying that the same tenuous assertions were made then that are being made now. Something that was at worst a brush with impropriety — perhaps a reason to make suggestions on a Talk page rather than editing directly, but not a reason to be expelled from Talk pages — continues to be at worst a brush with impropriety.
      talk) 21:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • What do you mean, "will throw a fit"? :-D Anyway, you're 100% right, and I've changed my !vote above. Levivich harass/hound 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be a lot more convinced of this if we had diffs which showed exactly how the POV was being pushed. The Geo Swan matter seems entirely different to me. There was a clear "bad action" in that case. I've reviewed some of the diffs from the topic and while I easily could have missed something (I didn't look at every diff, and I have no familiarity with the topic), I don't see any edits that stand out as what I would consider to be "bad actions," unless it's "being quoted in a secondary source about a controversial topic." SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Scroll up. You'll see such wonderful gems as:
                    • David Gerard's extensive sometimes highly negative commentary on the subject means they have a COI. And that they also clearly have a COI about the NYT article and strongly suggest they may have a COI about the subject in general. If this was Donald Trump say, I think we can let it slide because with such highly notable people it can be hard to find editors who don't have a strong opinion about the person. But this is very far from that, likely one reason why the NYT actually used David Gerard as a source. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • David, it seems clear that you have a COI, per WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI. You've acted as a source for a newspaper about this person, and tweeted about him. Now you're writing about him on WP, using that newspaper article as a source and removing criticism of it. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • It's important to stress again that David is prohibited by WP:BLPCOI of writing anywhere on Wikipedia about Scott Siskind, not only in the article Slate Star Codex: "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual ... [sic] should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person given the potential conflict of interest" (bold added). SarahSV (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • If you're talking to the New York Times as a source on a subject, you should probably find something else to edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • I am of the opinion that David Gerard has a COI here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • DG has been "involved in a significant controversy or dispute with" the blogger who writes the Slate Star Codex blog, and thus should not edit "material about that person" such as the article Slate Star Codex (where he is #1 editor by edits). This is a no-brainer. Levivich harass/hound 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      Usually, when things improve, we don't get commentary like that at ANI. Usually, when things improve, we don't have people pointing out the same issues raised 6 months ago. Let's say I agree with you; 6 months ago editors were concerned about a COI but concluded that (at the moment) editing the article was not a serious problem, given the above discussion (that you seem to have somehow immediately forgotten exists) how is this not worse? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You said that he became "more" deceptive, but your diffs are of the opinions of other community members. I agree that we're at the right result, which is that they shouldn't be editing that page anymore, but I still don't see any sanctionable conduct. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm not completely convinced of the distinction between interest and conflict of interest here, especially without clear diffs apart from being the "most active editor on the talk page." The user has said they won't touch the page anymore, which should be the end of the issue. SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support per Wugapodes' comment. If this exact same situation happened with an account with a good hundred edits, everyone would support a TBAN (but only if an admin didn’t indef them first). I’m surprised that a lot of the !votes are Opposes and the justification is "he promised to stop so we should listen". I’m sorry, but David has the rights to literally blow up the website. The fact that anyone thought to make an ANI thread about an admin and everyone is saying "oh but he prrrromisssed" is a giant red flag. David can "promise" to not delete the main page and then delete it the next day anyways. I can "promise" to follow a 1RR and revert twice the next day anyways. To me, promises don’t mean anything unless I know I can trust you. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As a fellow member of "the old boys club" I think there's a good deal of truth in Wugapodes' tirade. We do cut long-term users a lot of slack, perhaps more than we should. There's so obviously a COI problem here it shouldn't have required this much discussion. Black Kite's point on the disconnect between the handling of this situation, and that of Geo Swan, is apposite. Regarding voluntary restrictions, I don't like them in these cases. It concedes the issue to the user's judgment, even while acknowledging that said user's judgment is flawed. If we agree with the latter, then we shouldn't endorse the former. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Wugapodes writes quite emotionally but also quite persuasively. David Gerard does excellent work in many areas and that should continue. But no editor, especially not an administrator, should edit about a living person that they have a prolonged, active public grudge against. And if that behavior continues for months, a topic ban is the logical and fair result. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Wugapodes' argument is spot on. If anyone but a long-term sysop had edited with such a clear COI they would have been blocked by now. We need to meet the moment and send a clear signal that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Wugapodes incredibly potent and poignant rant. The stuff of legends, truly. Much respect. El_C 22:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to expand a bit by adding that, for myself, I try to avoid editing BLPs whom I dislike in any way that would negatively impact them, at least as much as is humanly possible — just for my own personal COI-like peace of mind and conscience. Excepting perhaps BLPs who are, say, heads of state, but even then I try to keep it in check; though, in fairness, there aren't that many heads of state that I do like, but I digress. The point is that contemptible BLP or not, is totally irrelevant to standing firmly against having them become potential victims. El_C 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. DG appears to have a personal conflict with the subject of the
      Less Wrong as per discussion above. Eliokim (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • So, now the subject of an article gets to declare in a
        talk) 02:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • @LokiTheLiar: In your oppose rationale above (which XOReaster cited in their original rationale) you said I think any situation which would make him covered by WP:BLPCOI would have to be two-sided: that is to say, either Siskind would have to come out and say he doesn't like Gerard either ("dispute"/"rival") Does the subject's statement from 17 days ago (from before your !vote but only just mentioned by Eliokim above) calling David Gerard the sort of unofficial president of my enemies' club and saying it seems more like the kind of thing that might happen if someone had it out for you make this seem like a two-sided "dispute"/"rival"? — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does make it seem more like a dispute in the conventional sense, but it doesn't really make it seem more like the sort of significant controversy or dispute that
          WP:BLPCOI
          , but I think any reasonable definition of a conflict of interest needs to go further than just "you can't have a COI that nobody else knows about".
      A conflict of interest is what it sounds like: it's when your personal best interest is in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia. So, stuff like a politician editing the article of a rival politician, parties to a court case editing each others' articles, editing the article of a close relative, directors editing the articles of movie critics, and so on; the stuff that is covered by
      WP:NPOV
      to insert negative information into any article because you have a negative personal opinion of the subject, but it's not a conflict of interest.
      I also share XOReaster's concern that omitting the "significant" from significant controversy or dispute opens the door to notable people being able to effectively topic ban their critics from editing their Wikipedia article simply by publicly noting that they are critics. That's not, I think, what's intended by being involved in a significant controversy or dispute.
      WP:BLPCOI is about. Loki (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      How do you get that from the text of the policy? Your interpretation of the spirit of
      WP:BLPCOI is "Using BLPs to continue disputes" which you admit this likely was and which David did; even the previous title (used at the redirect WP:BLPCOI is "Importation of off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia". Even if we want to limit the scope to "significant" disputes, I think contributing to a national news story about the subject (described as a "hit piece") which early on drew attention for its plans to out the subject is "significant". Speaking personally, none of my personal disputes have involved the New York Times, have yours? I'm not particularly worried about a slippery slope here, especially since we already have a policy on this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Support topic ban. It's a common-sense, long-overdue solution. →StaniStani 06:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support broadly construed topic ban. This discussion makes me uncomfortable. I believe strongly that productive editors, especially admins, should be encouraged. But I also care about Wikipedia's reputation. Sometimes our community must act to preserve editors and their ability to contribute. Better to act now than further down the road. David Gerard's judgement in this case, over a period of months, calls for a firm corrective. Words from his own keyboard show that his interaction with the subject of an article in Wikipedia space, in a NYT article, and other fora preclude involvement with any connected Wikipedia articles. This T-ban is for the protection of Wikipedia and Gerard. This corrective can help restore confidence in Gerard's judgement. We should place a guardrail to save an editor from spreading a public grudge across the internet. — Neonorange (Phil) 10:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Wugapodes. The lack of self awareness by David Gerard to see a potential issue with this behavior is also troubling. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a tban based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles linked by SlimVirgin. An admin has to be held at high standards. Vikram Vincent 14:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support broadly construed topic ban per Mo Billings, Wugapodes (especially), and Levivich. If this had been the behavior of a regular user, they would be topic-banned (if not outright indeffed) in ten seconds. - DoubleCross (‡) 15:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Wug. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Benjamin (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Obvious COI is obvious and Gerard's grudging concession to not directly edit the article itself is inadequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Coretheapple, Levivich, Cullen, Mr Ernie, Neonorange and Wugapodes. Breathtaking admin abuse, in my view, and calls for this topic ban at the very least. Jusdafax (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Levivich and others. I note that Gerard's activism has not been restricted to the topic of Scott Siskind, but has also extended to seeking to portray the rationality and effective altruism communities in the least favourable light possible, for example, edit warring on the Effective_altruism page. RyanCarey1 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Captain El Classico

    Blocked indef by Rosguill. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is a new editor, 2 weeks old with 56 edits, every single one of which has been reverted by a number of different editors. [56] Some of the edits were copyright violations, [57],[58] some were poorly sourced, [59] some were undiscussed major changes, over which they edit warred [60] and were blocked, [61] and attempted to reinsert after their block was over. (On Commons, they uploaded a historical photograph, putatively of Maria Schicklgruber as their "own work", without providing a source. [62])

    They do not respond to warnings left on their talk page,[63] nor do they alter their editing behavior as a result.

    Their focus is on Nazis and Nazism, which are all articles which receive a lot of vandalism and PoV editing. They require close watching by numerous editors in order to preserve their value. The last thing that's needed on these articles is a good-faith but incompetent editor making poor alterations and edit-warring over them.

    It's quite early in this editor's Wikipedia career, but so far they have not shown themselves to be a competent and productive contributor. They may well turn into one as they mature (I have the impression, which of course could be wrong, that the editor is young), but for the protection of the encyclopedia in the meantime, I believe a temporary topic ban from Nazis and Nazism is justified, perhaps for 6 months. This will give Captain El Classico a chance to show their worth to the community by editing in other subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: Not all of Captain El Classico's edits to Martin Adolf Bormann have been reverted. I have also left a detailed comment on CEC's talk page explaining the problems with their editing and urging them to post here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support taking some kind of action, I but I'm not sure a topic ban goes far enough. Their additions/changes have been very low quality, and for the most part don't comply with our minimum requirements for sourcing or for neutral wording or for compliance with copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, am I Sea Captain now? El_C 22:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)👍 Like— Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BMK: I don't foresee Captain El Classico succeeding here at all; there's too many issues. — Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be fair, I've left a message on CEC's talk page letting them know that an indef block is under discussion and, again, urging them to come here and make their thoughts known. I'm not at all sure that doing so will do any good, but... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My 2 cents: I don't think that a new editor who has never found their way to an article talk page or their own user talk page will ever abide by a topic ban, they most likely won't even see the notice that a topic ban has been imposed. I think this is just another editor who wants to do their editing without interacting with anyone else here. Those folks can edit successfully for years as long as they have mastered the policies and guidelines and don't edit war or get into conflicts with other editors. That isn't the case here. I'm not sure I'd block indefinitely but a longer block is in order. And I'd like to commend BMK for taking the time to explain to the editor on their talk page what the problems are. I just wish they'd take a few minutes and read all of the warnings on their talk page so we could know whether they understand that there are serious problems here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to have stopped editing, from about the time I filed this report. My feeling is that we won't see any more edits from this account, but, unfortunately, I don't think that necessarily means that the editor is finished editing here. It seems quite possible to me that they have, or will, simply move to another account and continue editing. If they do so, and their edits are in the same subject area (Nazis and Nazism), they'll undoubtedly be recognized fairly quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If they remerge and follow the same disruptive pattern of editing under this account, definitely, action will need to be taken with an indef block, being the only option. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) Their failure to communicate may be due to them using a mobile platform - as you see in their edit tags, and it is a known problem for mobile users that communication is basically impossible [65] - and for whatever reason, the foundation does not see fit to patch this rather severe UI oversight IMO. I see they have already been blocked once - does the block notice for mobile devices show up prominently with messages to check out their talk page? BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 17:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I have e-mailed CEC, giving the URL for this discussion, and the one for my notice on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, no reaction from Captain El Classico to my e-mails, and they're editing again -- and the quality of the edits is as poor as before. Therefore, I will make a proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal regarding User:Captain El Classico

    • Since WP:Competence is required, and WP:Communication is required as well, and since Captain El Classico has shown that they don't understand how information needs to be added and sourced to Wikipedia, and since they have not responded to numerous comments on their talk page, via e-mail, and on this page, I propose that they be indefinitely blocked until such time as they begin to communicate with other editors, and show that they understand Wikipedia's policies and requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Looking at their history for two seconds shows everything about this account screams NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  11:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely until Captain El Classico demonstrates that they are willing to communicate with other editors and to make constructive edits. signed, Rosguill talk 06:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring and disruptive editing by Ddum5347

    Since their account creation in August last year, Ddum5347 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has extensively edited animal (mostly bird and mammal) related articles. While some of their edits are constructive, a large proportion of them are controversial, and are not considered improvements by other editors. Examples of this include mass renaming animal articles from species names to supposed common names, as well as mass additions/removals of taxa from "list of [animals] of [country]" articles without any kind of discussion. Most edits lack edit summaries. When their edits are opposed by other editors they do not attempt to engage in dialogue to try to reach concensus, but instead engage in edit warring to impose their preferred view, for which they have been blocked several times. Ddum has made no attempt to engage with the issues other editors have had with their behaviour and warnings on their talkpage are ignored and periodically blanked (see diffs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9). Ignoring the blankings, Ddum has received over two dozen notices for problematic edits and edit warring over the less than the year the account has existed. I and many other editors of animal related articles find their editing disruptive and their behavior not compatible with the collaborative nature of encyclopedic editing. Ddum was blocked for 1 week for edit warring, which was then extended to two weeks for block evasion for editing while logged out. Since they have come back they have resumed their disruptive behaviour, including reverting edits they were previously edit warring over before they were blocked, ([66] [67]). See these threads at WikiProject Animals (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals#Ddum5347's_disruptive_edits) and Wikiproject Birds (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_72#Questions_about_"list_of_birds"_articles) for previous discussions surrounding Ddum's conduct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging relevant users @Pvmoutside: @Craigthebirder: @William Harris: @FunkMonk: @JurassicClassic767: @SilverTiger12: @MeegsC: @Faendalimas:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can confirm, DDum has caused several recurring issues. I only really pay attention to felid taxa and breed articles, so I am not as involved as the other editors, but I have had to deal with them added OR or removed cited information. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the WP:ORs in Lynx: on 1 Feb and on 21 Feb; then they added 2 refs, neither of which supports the argument. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ORs in Asiatic lion: on 4 Dec, on 5 Dec with a noteworthy edit summary, on 6 Dec; see also Talk:Asiatic_lion#No_lion_in_Afghanistan. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from Ddum's edit warring, another thing that bugs me is his lack of edit summaries, for example, in a recent edit of his at
    Guadeloupe Amazon, he removed a category without explaining why, so then I assumed it was one of his "bad edits", so to speak, and reverted it, but then afterwards he had to revert my edit just to explain why he removed the category, so yeah, that's annoying. And we could continue with other of his edits and mostly see disruptive ones, as mentioned above. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The editor has ascribed to a scientific reliable source something it did not state in order to have their own way here. The edit summary was correct but the edit's impact was not. Such behaviour is unacceptable. William Harris (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While edit warring is unacceptable, I do recall a discussion or two about using common names for articles - it's what WP prescribes, after all, and I would actually support doing so because I have searched for common names of plants, trees, birds, etc. and cannot find them. I'm of the mind that not finding articles is a significant problem. Most readers are simply not going to search using the scientific name. Beyond that, I have nothing more to add. Atsme 💬 📧 21:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, it would need discussion to change it wholesale. But yeah, I've also ended up in problematic situations with the editor, and they don't seem to change their behaviour at all, so I'm not sure what else, if anything, can be done... FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mostly making observations with this as I mostly edit on another wiki, hoewever, once he was blocked and it appears from a local CU that he attempted to avoid the block by socking I determined the line had been crossed and supported the ANI. That is essentialy the limit of my involvement, however I am grateful for the ping. Considering a willingness to sock has been demonstrated to avoid a one week bock, among his other issues as pointed out by others from my perspective this is not a simple case. Short of an indefinite ban a very clear message is going to be needed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps some form of
    WP:TBAN on all animal-related articles may be appropriate. William Harris (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    May as well just siteban him, then, since his only interest seems to be animal related articles. I'd much rather get him talking; he's clearly editing in good faith. That being said, a block for disruption (in the form of being unresponsive to talk page requests) might be the only way to get him talking at this point. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please repeat all of the things you wish for me to change behaviour-wise. I need to know what to do if I am to continue editing. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just go to the edit history of your talk page and look at all of the notices you have blanked rather than responding to. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the next step, then? I'm ready to discuss this. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:BRD. If an edit you have made is reverted, don't simply revert the reversion, but either move on or discuss the edit on the talk page of the article to attempt to gain concensus for the change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I will cooperate from now on. I just hope that if I make a discussion on the talk page, it isn't ignored. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    it is good to see you wiling to cooperate. One piece of advice I wil give you. A report was made on your talk page in refererence to you creating a second account to avoid your block, wether CUs or Sysops here wish to act on this I cannot say, I do not hold these positions on this wiki, I do on others. This is not the way to deal with being blocked, you can appeal the block and communicate, deal with the issue. It may lead to you being unblocked if the admins are saticfied. However, never avoid a block by making another account this is known as socking and can lead to an indefinite block. Just do not do this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps the subject editor might like to explain (a) the lack of an edit summary, and (b) the lack of a supporting reference, for this edit here after making the comments above. William Harris (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, “I just hope that if I make a discussion on the talk page, it isn't ignored.” Question for @Ddum5347: what will you do if you open a talk page discussion and someone posts an objection to what you want to do and you don’t agree with that objection? (Back in October/November they were edit-warring a change into United Kingdom - this is happening not just on animal articles - despite being reverted by multiple editors. Eventually they did open a talk page thread but carried on with the edit warring after doing so. In fact, they didn’t even wait for a reply.) DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the edit on
    African golden wolf, I added felid competitors it shares its range with. I will add sources soon. And for the UK edits, that was when I edit warred without thinking. I'm not going to be doing that anymore. Consensus is needed. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Ok, thanks Ddum. I hope you follow through. I see that an editor disputes the references you added to
    African golden wolf and reverted you. I’ll be interested to see how your follow through plays out there. DeCausa (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Great to read Ddum will be cooperating....proof is in the pudding now...i left a note on his/her talk page. I mentioned there he/she will also be on a short leash from many of us.... Pvmoutside (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who has experienced Ddum's edit-warring first-hand, I have been watching this situation unfold for some time, and I am not confident that he fully understands the BRD process, even now. Several months ago, at List of mammals of South Australia, Ddum replaced "extinct in South Australia" with the contentious term "extirpated". Along with a couple of other editors, I raised the issue on his talk page - he briefly responded, but then blanked the page. The same issue occurred later on the Thylacine article, and this time he did take limited part in the talk page discussion (see Talk:Thylacine#Extirpated). He had been provided with three definitions from reputable dictionaries (as well as another from Wiktionary), but his response was, in my view, very underwhelming.

    Due to Ddum being blocked for a period, I had until now refrained from reverting his changes to List of mammals of South Australia - back in December, he had reverted my restoration of the pre-edit-war status quo, with his edit summary including, "...Take this to the talk page". At the time, he didn't, which was a misuse of the BRD process because, as the editor making the contentious edits, the onus was on him to demonstrate that this was an improvement to the article.

    As a test of Ddum's willingness to adhere to his commitment to cooperate, earlier today I restored the pre-edit-war status quo to List of mammals of South Australia, and opened the discussion on the article's talk page. Five hours later, Ddum reverted my edit, after adding this comment to the article's talk page, including the same, in my view, inadequate reference he had provided to the Thylacine discussion.

    Although Ddum now appears to be more willing to engage in discussions with other editors, I fear that his propensity to engage in edit wars is undiminished. Bahudhara (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have states numerous times, this term is often used in biological articles, and is synonymous with local extinction. I don't know why you are so against using it, but it does not imply human causation of a population's extinction. The ref I provided is merely one instance of it being used [68], [69]. Also, you mindlessly reverted my edits, even though I added species that were not even on the list beforehand, and improved the article overall. My intent is to not edit-war, but to improve articles, and your aversion to the term has made you revert the article to its previous state several times. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "My intent is not to edit war" -- you must prove that by not edit warring. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 05:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, but this user's insistence has made it very difficult. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And at least one of the species that Ddum added to the list - feral water buffalo - doesn't even exist in South Australia! (If he'd bothered to read the ref he supplied, he would have seen that they exist only in the Top End of the Northern Territory.) I'll need to check the others he added. Bahudhara (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The bat species I added are native to the state. You didn't even address the rest of the things I said but alright then. Ddum5347 (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ddum, I think it would be a good idea if you slowed your editing down. Your edits over the last few hours are giving the appearance of only partially getting it on edit warring. Our exchange at the talk page of
    WP:EW before going any further. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Actually, “partially” getting it may be overstating it in your favour, looking at your 170+ edits (and what’s being posted to your talk page) over the 36 hours since you said this. You’re going too fast to take on board what’s being said to you. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur that you need to slow down. Also, stop changing phrasing just because you prefer a different version, especially in the lede of an article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My current concerns: they are still editing at about 100 mph and continue to make needless changes to grammar and phrasing. When I asked them to stop doing this on their talk page, they accused me of berating them. Seriously, DDum, please slow down and stop the grammar and phrasing changes- if it isn't broken, don't fix it, because oftimes, your changes aren't an improvement on what was already there. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of Wikipedia's grammar and phrasing could do with adjustments, but I am not looking at any particular editors or edits. There exists the hazard that in re-jigging grammar it then becomes exactly how the original source wrote it, and then the section is blanked by one of our diligent copyright-patrollers, never to be restored. One needs to proceed with caution. William Harris (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NPA

    In this edit, during an editoria dispute of Talk:Operation Sea Lion Osomite called me an "apologist". From the context, I infer that he meant a "Nazi apologist", since he also referred to my "prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland."

    At first I waved this off, but it then began to bother me, so I requested that he retract both defamatory statements. [70]

    Osomite's response was to first tag me with an unwarranted edit-warring warning related to the dispute, and then to post a non-apology apology, in which he apologized for my feelings, and not for his statements. [71] In any case, I did not ask for, and do not want an apology, I asked for him to retract his statements. When I told him that [72], he blew me off and told me to report him, which I am doing.

    I put prodigious effort into protecting Wikipedia from neo-Nazis et al. who try to alter facts or whitewash articles, and I do not appreciate being called an "apologist" for the Nazi invasion of Poland, simply because I stand by the historical record that the invasion was successful. "Successful" is not a measure of approval, it's simply a matter of which side won the battle in question. About this there can be no doubt: the Nazi invasion of Poland was successful.

    I would like an admin to take a look at the situation and issue a warning -- at least -- to Osomite not to violate

    WP:NPA and to ask them to retract their defamatory statements about me by striking them through, as I requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Hi
    founding principle of Wikipedia is that we treat others with respect, and making personal attacks directly conflicts with that. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Except that I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize is NOT an apology at all, since it's all about what the target is alleged to feel and not what the supposed apologizer has done. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also involved and the entire incident was a bizarre attempt to claim Poland was not defeated, which is odd, to say the least. The attack on Ken are unacceptable and (at the very least) Osomite should strike them and apologize. I tried to accommodate them. I get the feeling this may not be over. Their (belated, they replied after I had assumed it was over as Ken had added sources to the claim they were contesting) talk page comments smack of
    wp:Ididnothearthat. I now feel like I did Ken a disservice by trying to get a civil discourse and trying to address Osomite's concerns. It seems to me this was all just A POV pusher trying to force their version of nationalist history onto the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    1. I am a little behind on your prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland.
    2. better late than not to put my thoughts about your activity on record.
    3. You are disingenuous.
    4. Your argument is largely that of an apologist. Claiming that "That it did not last in perpetuity is irrelevant." is nonsense, and you probably realize that.
    5. In re: sources that BMK added: Conveniently they are in books that will be difficult to view and verify that you have been honest in these assertions., implying that BMK is a potential lier to boot.
    Permalink: [73]. The implication of 1 & 4 combined is clearly pointing towards Nazi apologist, so BMK was right to take offense. A non-apology 'apology' generally does not resolve anything. Here's what was offered by User:Osomite: I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize.. It's odd that this comment was given an edit summary of "apology to Beyond My Ken".
    I would recommend a strong word of caution, if not a warning against personalising disputes and attacking other editors on article Talk pages. Given that no actual apology has been offered so far, a short block may be in order as an alternate outcome. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, they are not apologizing for saying ken is an apologist, just that he is sorry for saying he is a Nazi one. Moreover I note "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial", so he still thinks he is in the right and Ken is on the wrong over the "controversy" (he is yet to show there is one, outside of his opinions) over whether or not Germans was successful. With an added "It seemed to me that Germany's successful invasion of Poland was a Nazi victory." I agree this is not a genuine apology by an ANI complaint one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Its pretty clear from the context that Osomite isn't remotely sorry about his blatant personal attacks. Despite Osomites denial, its very difficult to consider than he called BMK anything but a Nazi apologist. Its pretty clear by any reasonable standard that the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland was a victory in the early stages of the war, and describing people as "apologists" for supporting that is massively uncalled for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thanks to those who have posted here to support my position: I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
      I want to point out that in the 12 hours since Oshwah made the comment above, urging Osomite to retract their statements, Osomite has yet to do so. They have, however, made six trivial edits to one of their user pages, deleting old sections, which I take as being a rather ostentatious display of ignoring this complaint and the advice from an admin. I would like to suggest that such studied disregard of the call for a simple retraction of what are -- the consensus here agrees -- personal attacks is not the sign of someone who is prepared to behave in a civil manner -- in fact, quite the opposite. I ask that further administrative action be considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    block is going to be considered if you don't do this... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Talk:Operation Sealion [76], and have e-mailed Oversight asking that they be rev-del'd or oversighted, whichever is appropriate. Assuming that this request is accepted, I guess that the incident is over, except, of course, that Osomite will have escaped without being sanctioned for their continuing uncollegial behavior. Thanks for your assistance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wow that's... weird. And almost stalkerish. — Czello 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I read it as an indication that Osomite is rather unwilling to work and play well with others. I would note that there was some more explicitly "opposition research" information on that sub-page about me, which I deleted per
    WP:POLEMIC. [77]. The stuff about Slatersteven was more innocuous, so I didn't think it qualified for deletion, but I suspect they had the same purpose in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Response from Osomite

    @Slatersteven: I appreciate your concern. Thank you. I find this issue very distressing. Sadly it was the last thing I thought about while trying to fall asleep last night (actually at 3 AM) as this dilemma has been weighing on my mind. I do not call people Nazi apologists. I have not called people Nazi apologists. Beyond My Ken through inference (BMK's word) says I did.
    Slatersteven, after you made your proposal to me to remove my comments, I thought it was appropriate and was figuring out how to do what you suggested and best seek resolution. Yes, I was silent, the reason was that I wanted to give time to let things cool down. I was upset by the proceedings and want to be able to respond calmly. I was silent, but I was listening. I am distressed that my silence was construed as nefarious. Sometimes a silence is just a silence. I was just listening and thinking. What was the apparent need for urgency? You mentioned that I was "a POV pusher trying to force their version of nationalist history onto the article". Where did that come from? I have no alternate version of history to force. It is very interesting what some people consider the meaning of silence is.
    This issue initiated around my "edit" (I apologize for the "scare quotes", but I can't get the dif rename done without them) of the following sentence in the Operation_Sea_Lion article in the section "Invasion of Poland":

    In September 1939, the German

    a British
    alliance with Poland and both countries declared war on Germany.

    My purpose was to edit a poorly constructed sentence and clarify. With the result of:

    In September 1939, German

    a British alliance with Poland
    . Subsequently, France and Britain declared war on Germany.

    (Oops, I see that I created a typo "German" instead of "Germany".) So I reconstructed a sentence that had a comma splice and unusual conjunction "but". I edited it to make it three sentences. Making the entry more informative and clear was my object. And then I was left with the first sentence where using the word "successful" felt awkward. I have never considered the invasion of Poland "unsuccessful" (as some here have somehow construed). An invasion is either an invasion or a "failed invasion". And I have never seen the use of "successful" relative to "invasion" anywhere. Seeing that accolade in an encyclopedia article did not seem to have a neutral point of view NPOV. So I did not think that using the "successful" necessary. Removing the word "success" or "successful" does not change the meaning of the sentence. I had no hidden agenda with doing this. I had no agenda. I was trying to write the best encyclopedia article I could by removing a word that was unnecessary. After all, was an invasion and the invasion did what an invasion does. And in the edit summary, I indicated, "There is no support for the claim that the invasion of Poland was "successful". And from there BMK disagreed and reverted the entire edit. BMK ignored my edit of the second sentence which was a marked improvement over the original.
    Here is an observation. In the Invasion of Poland Wikipedia article, the word "success", relative to the overall invasion, was used once, stating "The success of the invasion marked the end of the Second Polish Republic, though Poland never formally surrendered." Here as with the Operation Sea Lion article, the word "success" is an unnecessary adjective. If the word "success" is removed, the meaning of the sentence is not altered.
    The encyclopedia Britannica, when discussing what caused WWII, it simply states, "World War II began in Europe on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland." Here is a creditable encyclopedia that does not feel the need for touting the invasion as "successful".
    Through all of this, I have pondered about "what was Hitler's goal in invading Poland?" What would have been Hitler's criteria to consider the invasion successful? Clearly, Hitler desired to expand eastward to gain “lebensraum” (living space) for Germans. Did the invasion accomplish this goal? Another thought was that Hitler needed to possess Poland in order to launch his offensive against Russia. Yes, the invasion was successful in Germany "possessing" Poland for this purpose. If it is this apparent, why couldn't BMK simply qualify the condition of success? Maybe BMK could have added another sentence or two?
    Recently, I read somewhere that with Germany's invasion of Poland and when the Allied Forces entered into WWII against Germany, at that point Germany had already realized that they had lost the war. With that view, it seems a stretch to say the invasion spawned a "success". I guess I need to find that again because there will undoubtedly be contention about this assertion. In any case, this line of inquiry is interesting and needs to be examined.
    For some reason, Beyond My Ken has called me "the editor" throughout this entire episode. This is a personal slight, I consider BMK to be rude. There is some psychology involved with not acknowledging a person with their name. To not acknowledge someone is a snub. It can mean to ignore or not take notice of.
    For some reason, from BMK's first revert of my initial edit, BMK made no effort to collaborate with me. He has only been brusk, offensive, and threatening. I made a single revert and BMK put the edit war Ambox warning on my talk page accusing "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Operation Sea Lion;" And then in an additional entry on my talk page threatened, "Your next revert to this article triggers a report to the edit warring notice board". OMG! I made a single revert at 10:35 and a second edit (retaining the word "successful" and BMK's response was to threaten me. Although in the edit war notice it counseled "Users are expected to collaborate with others", BMK never sought to collaborate with me. I highly doubt that BMK's behavior reflected an appropriate protocol.
    Throughout many edit exchanges with editors, BMK has been determined to retain the exact original badly constructed sentence with simply the addition of four references supporting specifically for the single word "successful" in the context of "In September 1939, the successful German invasion of Poland". The placement of the references is unusual; they are placed immediately after the word " ". BMK's "edit" (Again, apologies for the "scare quotes") establishes that the references are specifically for just the word "successful", remarking in the edit summary "This is the way it must be done."
    I appreciate that BMK has provided references specifically for the word "successful". I plan to track down the books to see whether there is actually a clear statement or analysis stating that the invasion was "successful". After I have been able to do find the books (they are at my libraries) and do the research, I was will report my results. If I am wrong, I will admit that I am wrong with appropriate apologies to BMK. I value truth and I value an honest presentation of history.
    I see from the discussions, things have not cooled off. Beyond My Ken has been quite busy prosecuting his case. Is that appropriate? Today, BMK has "redacted what he considers to be personal attacks" in my post on the Operation Sea Lion Talk page. Was that appropriate? It seems that BMK is doing his best to add heat and stir the pot. From this situation, am I going to received fair consideration?
    My posts concerned were in reply to "BLM post" (apologies for the "scare quotes") which was initiated immediately after I made "my first and only revert" (apologies for the "scare quotes").
    BMK considers the following phrases to be personal attacks. Just to provide a perspective they were not grouped but spread in my post to BMK
    • "to maintain Nazi victory in Poland"
    • 4 lines of text follows
    • "You are disingenuous."
    • 10 lines of text follows
    • "Your argument is largely that of an apologist."
    I am truly sorry that BMK inferred (BMK's word) that a word in the first phrase and a word in the third phrase was a personal attack of being called a "Nazi apologist". I am sorry he saw it that way. It was in no way intended to be a personal attack that I had "cleverly hidden". I did make an apology which was heartfelt ("I did not say you were a Nazi apologist. I am sorry that you inferred that. For the offense you feel, I apologize."). However, somehow I did not say whatever magical words BMK thought appropriate and called it a "nonapology apology". Some here have the view that I did not make a "not a genuine apology". Is there some guidance on how to make a genuine apology?
    About "apologist". Some who are judging here, consider that because I rebuffed BMK's "success" argument by saying it was "largely that of an apologist" is a personal attack. An apologist is "one who speaks or writes in defense of something". What is wrong with that? That is what BMK did. I did not find BMK's argument convincing.
    And about personal attacks. "BMK's reply to me" (apologies for the "scare quotes") contains some significant personal attacks on me:

    "I won't take it seriously, because you're so far off the mark that you're entirely around the bend. Ignoring your ignorant personal jibes, the issue here is simple: reliable sources, and every historian worth their salt, says that the German invasion of Poland was a successful one."

    BMK tells me, "I am entirely around the bend", calls me "ignorant", and then just claims the authority of historians "worth their salt". That wasn't much of an argument, it was, to me, what you would expect from an apologist who has few facts at hand. It was an insult to me. BMK claims I made a personal attack, which is ironic when BMK freely makes personal attacks; they were personal attacks that were so clear there was no inference needed to understand what they were. I would appreciate BMK's apology for his personal attack on me.
    BMK's posts contain quite a bit of disparagement directed towards me; a lot of anger. The tone was arrogant and overbearing. BMK was presenting what BMK considered to be superior knowledge and was quite annoyed at being challenged. BMK took some particularly umbrage with my challenge requesting a reference for the adjective "successful". It seemed to me that BMK was looking for reasons to have controversy and conflict.
    About "disingenuous". Here is "my post" and here is the comment in context which was concerned his aspersion that I was edit warring although I only made a single revert:

    "You are disingenuous. You were in an edit war earlier this month from which you received a edit block of one month. You contested the block and received mercy. You ended the episode by claiming, "I'll try my best to improve". You need to work on that claim, walk the talk."

    It is apparent, and BMK's editing history involving his past edit wars demonstrates it, that BMK is not candid or sincere and is in fact quite disingenuous. He claimed an edit war after I made a single revert, which is disingenuous. BMK would prefer to distract and misdirect and call it a personal attack; however, it is not, it is simply an observation of fact. This is not BMK's first rodeo.
    Many words have been written here with many analyses of my words. In a lot of ways, I see this as much in the way of John Godfrey Saxe's poem [The Blind Men and the Elephant] which ends:

    "So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween, tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean, and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!"

    I hope for an honest opinion of the elephant.
    Clearly the judges are self-selecting themselves. Can the judges act without bias and fairness?
    I feel that the judges have been looking at this episode cherry-picking words, touching only the parts of the elephant that are easily at hand, and making assumptions based upon, probably, a predetermined result. You assume you know all about me and have already passed judgment. You layer assumption upon assumption. You suppose. You guess. You infer.
    I feel that I will not find fair judgment here. I wonder that when making your judgments, has all of the record in the posts been reviewed and given equal weight? With BMK making on-going "comments" (again apologies for the "scare quotes") and whipping up the prosecution I feel an unfair finger on the scale.
    I have a suspicion that what I have written here is just going to provide more "grist for the mill" with more criticism of what you think I really said and more condemnation.
    As you judge me, do you consider Beyond My Ken blameless? Shouldn't his involvement be considered?
    I have not challenged anyone's specific already stated determinations. Doing that would probably not change any opinion. I have not addressed every detail. If anyone has a specific question they would like me to address, please let me know.
    Osomite hablemos 04:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not thoroughly read the wall-of-text above, but I have skimmed it, and on the surface it appears to be a venture in
      WP:Wikilawyering. However, Osomite is correct that my posting "around the bend" was inappropriate, and I have now retracted that by striking it through. I will not withdraw "ignorant", because their comment was indeed completely oblivious to the thrust of my editing career in regard to Nazism, Fascism, neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism etc., just as their synopsis above is ignorant of what I do and have done in general, and, I believe, of my character. - they clearly have drawn their conclusions from a quick scan of my current talk page. I also note that Osomite has chosen to double-down on my being "disingenuous", which, of course, is simply polite-speak for "liar". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    BMK, you should read it carefully, and in general just stop making ANI your playground. Be nicer and be here less often, in all respects, please. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if you read the comments above and on
    Talk:Operation Sealion, you'd find that a number of independent editors -- in fact, all of them who have commented -- have agreed that Osomite's remarks contained personal attacks, which they have refused to retract. That would seem to justify a remark to Osomite to be nicer, not to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think it is fair to say neither user displayed conspicuous politeness here. But I think the problem was Osomite's refusal to retract and attempts to justify why they were right, not the PA's themselves. Osomite you need to wholly accept you are wrong about what you said about BMK, that is was unacceptable. Not with a wall of text but just "I get what I said was wrong and I unreservedly apologize", one line is all it needs. BMK, your decision to remove the offending posts now means that Osomite cannot now choose to remove them, thus is unable to show they get it. I think we need to draw a line under this. Osomite, Wikipedia works by referencing
    wp:or principle, as well as wp:bluesky. As many users told you Poland lost (thus the Germans invasion was a success) by any meaningful criteria. You failed to provide any RS backing your contention it was not a success, and thus waste time on a matter that should have been dropped. Even after sources were provided you still argued the toss it was not so. For me therefore there are issues here that go beyond the PA's (which may have been a language issue). You need to show that you will not try to push OR again, against consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "BMK, your decision to remove the offending posts now means that Osomite cannot now choose to remove them, thus is unable to show they get it." That is not the case, at least at the moment. All they would have to do is revert my redacting edit and strikeout the offending remarks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A Briefer Response From Osomite

    Slatersteven advised me that it would be more helpful to have condensed my responses into one or two paragraphs.

    @Slatersteven: Yes less is more. Good thought. I have never been involved in a personal attack accusation and I had no guidance to follow so I did what I thought appropriate. Ironic, there was much ado about my prolonged silence, and now you want brevity. I was told to reply and that it was serious. I figured if it was serious, I would take it seriously and reply appropriately. I figured I had one opportunity to respond, so I made an effort to put it into perspective. What could I have explained in a paragraph or two? What is the critical issue? The critical defense?
    You make a good point, so here is a try at brevity. A focused defense. (Hmm, and after writing the "brief", it is more than a paragraph or two. I did it with as few words as I could)
    I have been accused by "inference" that I called Beyond My Ken (BMK) a Nazi Apologist. I did not. "Inference" is "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning." What is the evidence?
    In my first post to the conversation, having spent some time carefully crafting it, I discovered when I tried to post I got an edit conflict as Slatersteven and BMK had posted several times while I composed, and I was behind. So I revised the post I was working on to place my somewhat belated comments in context. I "prefaced" with the comment, "I am a little behind on your prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland." I used the words "Nazi" and "victory" as they were prominently used in the back and forth posts between Slaterstevenu and BMK. I picked up on the theme. The words "Nazi attack" in my post were simply an "echoing" of the ideas being discussed. An echo nothing more.
    The words "Nazi attack" would not be the ones I would use concerning the issue of "successful invasion". "Nazi attack" was not my original thought about the situation. BMK created the discussion section on the Operation Sea Lion talk page and titled it, "Was the Nazi invasion of Poland a success?" The original use of the word "Nazi" in the discussion done BMK.
    Further down in the post, the part that I had tried to post but could not due to an edit conflict situation, I rebutted BMK's argument as being that of an apologist. An apologist, and nothing more. (See my previous post about "apologist", it is just a word to characterize a type of argument).
    BMK, who clearly by the talk page discussion, at this point was very annoyed because I challenge the word "successful" and wanted a reference for that conclusion. So BMK, while annoyed (perhaps to the point of anger), read my post and wanted to reply. BMK created out of hole-cloth an imagined insult, a personal attack, because I used the word "Nazi" and "apologist" in the same post. Post hoc ergo propter hocer inferring, BMK decided that I said BMK was a "Nazi apologist". That is not true. I did not infer that, BMK inferred that.
    To say that I made a personal attack is not true, I had no intent. I did not call BMK a "Nazi apologist". When I saw BMK's post back to me, I thought, "Oh Dear, where did that come from?" I immediately replied with an apology. Sadly BMK did not think it was not sufficient calling it a "nonapology apology". I am sorry that my apology did not satisfy BMK. At this point, I indicated I was no longer willing to engage (considering BMK's emotional state and imaginings). So I "went silent", which many here thought was a very suspicious thing to do. Note in my post, I said that was what I was intended to do. I invoked Godwin's law. And, I was condemned because I was not replying immediately. My speed of thought and action, unfortunately, does not match others in the Wikipedia world.
    BMK made a personal attack incident report. And here we are, with me defending myself from an "inferred" personal attack. I have been accused of doing something I did not do by "inference". Is inference adequate proof to make it fact? About this inference, I believe that I should be allowed the "benefit of the doubt".
    Osomite hablemos 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Osomite, what you wrote is not brief. I will be brief. The Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 was a miltary success. Period. End of story. The way you spoke to BMK was offensive and out of line. Period. You should make an unambiguous apology and behave better in the future. That's it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And can you explain this [[78]], which seems to be using your user page for promotion of a company that makes paid contributions to Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User Störm

    Störm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Also raised above at

    WP:ANI#AfD nominator closing own discussions

    I don't like bringing editors to ANI, but in this case I feel it necessary. Last night, I was checking

    WP:GNG
    , no coverage found" despite it having four references. All were being nominated by Störm.

    Initially, I warned Störm to stop nominating cricketers at AfD. He agreed not to nominate any more and I suggested that we see how those AfDs already running panned out so that we could assess whether or not my concerns re the nominations were valid. I also raised the issue at

    WT:CRICKET#AfD nominations of cricketers revealed that Lugnuts had raised the issue previously with Störm. A look at Störm's talk page history confirms this. Bobo192
    raised the issue of these AfDs having the effect of driving away editors at WT:CRICKET, a sentiment I agree with.

    To prevent further disruption to the project, I therefore propose that Störm is banned from nominating any article about a cricketer for deletion for a period of six months, and is also permanently formally banned from closing any AfD discussion that he has started. Störm may participate in AfD discussions not started by him. During the ban period, Störm is encouraged to study AfDs in the subject area he is interested in and learns from nominations that fail or succeed, leading to an improvement when he returns to nominating articles at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mjroots, this was quick considering our agreement that we will wait and see. Your WP:ANI shows your shallow view of the issue at hand (
    WP:RS and you should take note here. Also, go and read RfC on NCRIC and other related discussions). For your information (Mjroots), I am an active member of WP:CRIC since I joined in 2015 and have created and improved hundreds of articles for the project. I am also nominating cricket-related articles for deletion since long (because I believe in quality rather than quantity and in my view sportspeople bios have overwhelmed the WPs categories because of too-inclusive subjects-specific guidelines) and most of them result in delete or redirect (an admin here may check my last six months AfD record). Störm (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Störm: - Had you not started improperly closing AfDs you created, we probably wouldn't have been here. It is extremely rare for me to start a discussion here, as regulars will confirm. I'm not here to get you blocked or anything like that, but I do feel that this issue does need to be looked at properly. If consensus is that you do not need to be stopped from nominating articles at AfD, then I will accept that. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you did this in good faith, but I feel you should have waited and looked at the issue of
    WP:NCRIC. I accept that some of my nominations were bad and I have made a spate of nominations that I feel I should have avoided. Feedback and outcome here will help me decide my future (if most of admins feel I should be banned then I will leave this place voluntarily). Störm (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thank you Mjroots for the ping. This issue is not new and has not popped up overnight. But then it went without popping up for 14 years and everyone seemed fine with that. Whatever the issue of conduct relating to AfD discussions, I believe there are two separate arguments being made here and they are at cross-purposes to each other. While trying not to change the subject, the fact that "sportspeople bios have overwhelmed the WPs categories because of too-inclusive subjects-specific guidelines" [sic] shows simply how efficient we have been at creating them over the last 16 years or more. The continued claim that the project is biased towards cricket coverage bears no weight. It might surprise some WP:CRIC project members to know that other sports are covered on Wikipedia too - and, ironically, in much greater and more thorough detail.
    For the sake of statistics, Storm's article creation history of 2550 articles, contains 1356 pages with the auto-summary "moved page... to", 672 with "Redirected page to", and six with the words "may refer to". I cannot say anything else regarding the issue. (That is not to say I could not). To be blunt, I would be de-sysopped. Bobo. 09:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the "low bar" of notability criteria for cricket articles, it is identical to that of football, ice hockey, American football, basketball, and baseball. Bobo. 09:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On that specific last point, they're not equivalent and I don't think anyone seriously claims they are; because of the nature of how global cricket is structured with multiple different variants of the game, a calendar based around international touring, and a culture of top-level clubs giving chances to newcomers, it's far easier for a cricketer to make an appearance "at the highest international or domestic level" than it is in (for example) baseball. That's not to say the notability guidelines are wrong—particularly for international level it's usually reasonable to assume that at minimum "local boy makes good" stories will have appeared in the newspapers—but the structure of cricket isn't equivalent to that of the NFL or the Bundesliga. ‑ 
    Iridescent 10:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Numerically speaking, they are. My query has never been whether they were equivalent to each other. Bobo. 10:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- firstly, this should have been combined with the other thread. Secondly, oppose a ban on cricketer AfDs because this user does good work in clearing out permastubs about non-notable people. Thirdly, oppose a ban on closing own AfDs because Störm has already agreed to stop doing that- so that a ban at this point would only be a punitive black mark that actually accomplishes nothing behaviour-wise. Reyk YO! 10:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If only to make this point in a wider setting, away from the cricket Wikiproject talk page, to consider certain individuals as "non-notable people", whether right or wrong, is a considerable value judgement. and stands square against both subject-specific (CRIN) and overarching (N) guidelines. Reyk, I have no issue with you making this claim, in fact, I'm being surprisingly considerate in the fact that WP: and WT:CRIC may be considered (by some) to be a "walled garden". Bobo. 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AfD ban of some kind for any type of articles. Flooding AfD with dozens of noms can be seen as vexatious, and has driven away at least two very active editors from the project sicne the start of the year. As I've said on Storm's talkpage, I have no issue with them taking any article to AfD, and some of them might well be deleted, but excessive nominating is not the way to do it. A previous
      WP:IDHT terrority, so if editors think a six-month ban from AfD is too harsh, then prehaps a limit of one AfD per day instead, which I know has been enforced with other editors in the past. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Those of us who have been busy creating articles for all this time have been driven away from doing so and/or completely driven away from the project. Article creation is no longer happening and there is no longer any incentive to do so. Bobo. 11:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support limit to One AfD per day as per Lugnuts, while I have no problem with there being cricket AfD articles, they have become excessive in number. It's difficult to get a good consensus on these articles when there are upwards of 20 put up a day. Limiting to one a day would allow Storm to continue AfDing but would also allow
    WP:CRIC members the time to vote on them, whereas trying to find time to vote on 20 AfD's can be difficult for some members. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    A limit of one AfD/day is acceptable to me. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a reasonable solution to me and will hopefully help improve the level of discussion on cricket articles at AFD, which has dropped of significantly recently. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to accept the limit, if
    WP:BEFORE work at once and then nominate them at once. I willing to avoid that in future). Störm (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Nope. If you think there's an issue with my article creations, then feel free to start an ANI thread about it. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issues with the cricket articles Lugnuts creates, they are for current players who are likely to go onto multiple games and gain significant coverage from that. There is no problem with creating stubs, it just needs others with the time/expertise to expand them (users from certain areas will be able to find sources from players from their area or language for example). Over time these stubs can be evaluated if they no longer play and can then be put up for deletion of they've only played one or a few matches and have no coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I have closed a number of AfDs filed by Störm that start something like "fails GNG not notable"; however in almost all cases other editors give more substantial arguments for keeping or deleting the article (or in the rare case nobody does, I will typically close as soft delete). I think I'll put him in the same category as John Pack Lambert - "mildly annoying, but that's it". Unless there is a mass exodus of editors upset at seeing all these cricketer bios at AfD - and I don't think there is - any sanctions are more a solution looking for a problem, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AfD close sanction only Came here after a DRV request. I have more of a problem with the "passes
      WP:CRIN reform discussion was so all over the place it led me to take a wikibreak. The problem here in my opinion is the AfD closes (I consider the bulk creation of cricket stubs an issue as well, but this is not the right forum for that.) I'd support a light sanction that Störm not be closing any AfD, much less self-closing, which should be obvious. They do not appear to be an administrator, so this should not be a controversial restriction. I don't think there should be a formal sanction about cricket AfDs, but so many of them are open at the moment and they're all Störm-initiated that it is a minor problem, but not necessarily a long-term sanctionable one. I'd strongly recommend letting all of the ones at AfD play out before continuing. SportingFlyer T·C 19:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Support AfD close sanction only as outlined above by
      WP:NACINV. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    A sub-point to this is that of the AFDs that Störm has started, a large proportion have been closed with a delete outcome (either delete or redirect). So on that basis, I'm hesitant to support a ban on them creating AFDs, although maybe speed should be slower (as 50 in one day is a lot). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions against Storm; support thanking them instead, per data. There's no need for a don't-close-own-AFDs sanction where Storm has already voluntarily agreed not to do that (as I understand it). W/r/t bulk nominations, I think if we allow bulk creation of stubs based solely on statistics websites, then we should allow bulk AFD nomination as well.
      W/r/t Storm's nominations overall: of the last 116 of Storm's noms that closed (excluding no consensus and open noms), which go back a month or so to Jan 24, 2021, per AFD stats the match was 91.4% [79]. And that's counting merges as non-matching; if we count merges as matching, it goes up to 113/116 or 97.4%! Of the previous 200 noms, which range from March 25, 2020 to Jan 24, 2021, the match percent is 72.1% [80], and counting merges as matching, that goes up to 160/190 or 84.2%. The previous set of 200 runs from Nov 30, 2019 to March 25, 2020, and is 88.5% match [81]. So the data shows Storm's noms are overwhelmingly good, and that Storm's noms over the last month, though more voluminous, are still matching at >90%, which means Storm is actually getting better at choosing which articles to nominate.
      So, I oppose sanctioning Storm for correctly nominating articles; instead, I thank Storm for doing so. Though I will add that it would be better to reduce the number of concurrently-open AFDs in any one topic area: just because you have time to nominate 100 at a time doesn't mean anyone else has time to review that many. I would suggest limiting the number of concurrent open noms by any one editor to some reasonable number per
      WP:DELSORT list. Levivich harass/hound 20:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    I've not checked, but I'd wager a small fortune that a lot of those AfDs had Lambert as the only participant, with his usual deletion !vote. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even more absurdly, in football, you can pass the SNG with just a few seconds of professional football. There have been many deleted recently that had less than a minute of football and almost zero apparent coverage. At least in cricket you usually need to at least see out the one match to claim that status of notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD. If it is acceptable to community then I will continue with WP else I will leave as it will be shame if I get any type of block as I never mean it. Will appreciate the feedback. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Störm, you don’t mean that, that’s just hasty, & unnecessary tbh. I’m not sure how I feel about you closing AFD’s you started, which is a default no no, except you are withdrawing & speedy keeping it. However, I oppose any sanctions on you seeing as a simple warning would suffice and generally, you do very decent work. It’s a good thing the perfection threshold is impossible to meet. So just take a deep breath before commenting any further. Celestina007 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanctions, as I believe a detailed warning should be adequate here. A sanction would punitive as the “problem” isn’t ongoing. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose limit of 3 AfD closes per day, for his next dozen AfD closes. There is no great crime, just a reminder to close carefully needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support limit to one AfD per day - I can say from experience and observation that a single person flooding a topic area with a mass amount of AfD nominations in a short amount of time is almost never a good thing (regardless of percieved or assumed cruft), except maybe in certain cases of obvious violations of recent mass consensus or something to that effect (And even then, it shouldn't be just one or two editors doing the nominating). In this case, the user seems to be mass-using copy/paste cookie cutter rationales like "Fails GNG, no coverage found" (volume of nominations + lack of variation in rationales = it's dubious that the nom is actually adhering to GNG and
      WP:NEXIST, or that anyone had time to properly assess the articles). Then there's the more blatant conflict of interest of closing your own AfDs, which is red flag #3. Darkknight2149 08:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    Genocides in history (before World War I)

    Various POV-driven IPs and accounts are causing large-scale disruption to the sensitive article

    WP:CONSENSUS, or are trying to add non-genocides to the list (such as the Batak massacre) even though there is no academic consensus to call it as such. Attention is urgently needed. I already have filled request [82] for a temporary full page protection here at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but it is taking too long. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    semi is really the only option here. Just for future reference. El_C 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Just for good recordkeeping, refactoring my note at RfPP (diff) before it falls into the depths of the
    abyss: As mentioned at ANI, this page isn't a candidate for full protection at this time, but due to its sensitive nature, will need to be watched closely, indefinitely (I'm predicting an indef semi in its future). Its import is such that disruption (advocacy) needs to be curtailed especially swiftly and decisively. El_C 15:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC) El_C 15:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @El C: actually, the article saw disruption by both IPs and registered editors (of whom the one got blocked by Ymblanter for 72 hours). Had it been just IPs doing the disruption, a semi-protection would have made the most sense otherwise. However, I am still happy and won't ask for Full Protection anymore, because I am content that your strict warning [83] will be heeled and everyone will approach the sensitive article with more caution the next time. Thank you very much and my apologies in advance for having to come both here and to the Page Protection noticeboard, I did because of its very sensitive nature. Also I find myself absolutely endorsing your statement. Take care. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologize, indeed, this is a legit RfPP-to-ANI refactor. Noting of there having been two disruptive autoconfirmed accounts (both indeffed) and 5 disruptive IPs (page created 22 January 2021‎). Anyway, the point is that, per
    GS. For sure, glad I could help! El_C 15:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    Greek Armed Forces article infobox, which is carefully avoiding fantasy claims). If a temporary topic ban is what can help editors understand that unhelpful edits aren't the way to go, then I support it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Same claim for the date of founding is in the Turkish Armed Forces article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is irrelevant, not like the previous one I just reverted once and I get the warning.This is not fair, I wrote the reason next to it when i revert.I did not disrespect or exaggerate anybody. I stated the correct official source if you look at logo of Turkish Land Forces you will see founded 209 BC and also on their official site and even on every insignia about genocides i re added/ reverted Batak massacre You claim that it is not a holocaust/genocide, but in the article it is stated that it is an obvious genocide. And that's why I reverted... I don't want you to reverse the blocking, just the warnings are unnecessary 3-4 times I'll pay more attention from now on, but if discussion is prohibited then remove the talk page as well.. Kindly regards Cengizsogutlu (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cengizsogutlu, Batak massacre is not described as a genocide (and "holocaust," really?). Your comment inspires little confidence otherwise, as well. We're probably treating you in too lax a manner, is my strong impression. El_C 17:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:PRIMARY. The Talk Page consensus diff can be read here: [85]. Let me know if I missed something. Good day everyone! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    SilentResident, sorry for the belated response. I've just given Cengizsogutlu an ARBKURDS DS alert in light of their latest edit earlier today (diff). This is not looking promising, I'm sorry to say. El_C 05:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? Half of the texts on that page were written by me. You don't have to waste time to block me If you want, block me completely. If you are going to leave a follow-up note on everything, this place is no different than a chicken coop. No need to constantly find flaws and prevent banning policy.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also chek this page of Iran Islamic Republic of Iran Army I'm not the only one doing this perhaps..Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about this?Russian Armed Forces 16. Century?Cengizsogutlu (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OWN— what matters is that you revert a lot, but use article talk pages seldom. That's a problem, which I'm trying to make you cognizant of. El_C 06:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It seems Cengizsogutlu is interested in the Iranian Army's article given that they are pointing to it containing in its infobox a propagandistic claim that the Islamic army was founded 3.000 years ago, yet I do not see the editor actually trying to be useful by fixing it instead of arguing here. Their toxic attitude and edit warring behavior aren't useful. I would advice that they change course before it is too late. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PailSimon

    PailSimon
    @

    Mikehawk10, Jancarcu, NoonIcarus, My very best wishes, Horse Eye's Back, Czello, and Oranjelo100
    :
    talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )

    There is a discussion on the talk page of

    Talk:Uyghur genocide#PailSimon, POV editing, misleading edit summaries, and removal of sourced content
    regarding POV editing, misleading edit summaries, removal of sourced content by PailSimon. Several editor expressed that this should be brought to ANI, so I am bringing it here. PailSimon has been bludgeoning on the talk page and generally is creating a battleground on the article to push their POV.

    Examples: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]

    Misleading or False edit summaries: [107], [108], [109], [110].

    Citobun and myself (and I believe Horse Eye's Back) have expressed concerns that this problem is not limited to this article, but is occuring on other pages as well. I had hopes after the talk page discussion this might stop before ANI, but they have continued this morning, dispite multipe editor expressing strong concerns in the talk page discussion.

    This was the edit and edit summary that originally peaked me attention, [111] (claiming NPR was a deprecated source as an excuse to remove content), followed up with [112].

    Since several editors requested this to be brought here [113], [114], [115], [116], [117] (which I support) I have done so. PailSimon has also had multiple editors leave warnings regarding this problem on their talk page User talk:PailSimon#February 2021. I have pinged the editors that seem most involved but there are others as well.  // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by PailSimon

    This is just a preliminary note to say I will go through each of those edits one by one and do my best to clearly explain my rationale behind them while also addressing some of the more bizarre accusations (misleading edit summaries).PailSimon (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No.1 As you can see from the edit summary I thought it
    WP:UNDUE
    to emphasis the opinion of one single nation to the extent that it was being emphasized.
    No.2 The first part removed was collateral damage and I did not object to it's inclusion (Horse Eye's Back later readded the first part with no objection from myself). The issue was the second paragraph added which was later unilaterally agreed on the talk page to be removed due to sourcing issues etc.
    No.3 As I have said on the talk page I mistakenly believed the user to be citing The Sun. This was a mistake on my part and it is worth pointing out (as I have pointed out above) that I did not object to its re-addition when Horse Eye's Back re-added it.
    No.4 As pointed out in the edit summary the section in question was statements from countries and the organization in question is not a country.
    No.5 I don't see how this is an objectionable edit from an standpoint given my explanation in the edit summary. Is it bad to restore the consensus version?
    No.6 ibid
    No.7 ibid
    No.8 I do not really understand what could possibly be the issue with this edit.
    No.9 The content was unrelated to the subject of the article given that it was referring to the
    2009 Urumqi riots
    and not the present Chinese attitude to the Uyghurs which is what the article is about.
    No.10 No clue what's so horrible about this edit either.
    No.11 ibid
    No.12 I don't see how avoiding
    WP:OVERCAT
    is a bad thing.
    No.13 I think the edit summary speaks for itself here.
    No.14 ibid
    No.15
    WP:ATTRIBUTION
    was being followed here
    No.16 I was encouraging the user to stop edit warring and seek consensus on talk page per BRD.
    No.17 The Sun is a deprecated source.
    No.18 Edit summary speaks for itself. I am not sure how the addition of sourced content is objectionable in this case.
    No.19 See No.5
    No.20 I fixed a redundant statement as per the edit sumamry.
    No.21 See No.5

    I really dont understand what's so awful about any of these edits that warrants this being brought to ANI.PailSimon (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Misleading or False edit summaries" - No.1 See No.3 answer in post above. No.2 I have zero idea how this is misleading. I even asked TimothyBlue to explain to me what was misleading about it but he refused to do so for whatever reason. No.3 ibid No.4 ibid PailSimon (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by TimothyBlue

    I think PailSimon has the potential to be a good editor; I did not want to see this come to this point. But I believe the above shows a clear pattern of POV pushing and DE related to this article and as a whole I think the problem extends to China in general. As I said in the OP, I had hoped the talk page discussion would be enough to stop this problem, but I don't believe there is any indication from PailSimon that they are

    WP:LISTENing
    to other editors concerns about their editing. I believe if some help is provided at this point, possibly with a mentor, a productive editor will emerge. But if the above pattern is not addressed, it will only affirm the behavior, it will get worse and a potentially good editor will be lost.

    I would like to see PailSimon voluntarily agree to abstain from working on articles related to China/Central Asia, get an experienced (uninvolved) mentor, and focus on making positive contributions to articles in other areas. This would avoid having to place a negative mark on their record and it could be reviewed at 6m with input from their mentor if the problem does not repeat in other areas. I almost always think editors should be given the opportunity to voluntarily work on a problem, rather than receive a bad mark; PailSimon should be afforded this opportunity.

    PailSimon, I know there are some subject areas I am interested in, but it would only result in problems if I go there. It wouldn't be productive to edit in these areas and it certainly wouldn't be enjoyable. An example: I'm gay and I'd be banned in less than a week if I decided to edit articles related to LGBT issues (I become positively unglued over anti-lgbt userboxes, I don't even both reporting them). So these areas I've decided to stay away from, not because I have to, but because I know its the best for me. I don't read these articles, I don't engage in discussions, I just stay away and avoid the pain and problems (I know this example is different from the current issue, but you see my point). I think your responses show you have a blind spot in the CHina area (again as we all do in some areas). One of the best lessons I've learned is to know what articles I need to leave alone for others to work on.

    Also please don't see the idea of having a mentor as in anyway negative (I have adopted two, CaptainEek and El C); its very helpful and even admins like CaptainEek have more experienced editors they look to as mentors.

    I offer this advice with nothing but goodwill; please consider it, no need to directly respond. The items I've bolded above are directly specifically to you, again with goodwill.  // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In light of recent developments and this thread I strike my comments. See my proposal below.  // Timothy :: talk  21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see have me applying
    WP:CONSENSUS, removing deprecated sources etc justifies this whole overblown song and dance. It seems to me like you're just making a mountain over a molehill. Perhaps if you explained what was so awful about the above?PailSimon (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The speedy reply shows you didn't even bother to take time to
    WP:LISTEN and consider my post; this is in the hands of the community at this point, they can consider your editing and responses.  // Timothy :: talk  22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Consider what exactly? You haven't said anything substantial beyond "take a step away for some vague reason". Step away because why exactly? Because I have removed deprecated sources and enforced
    WP:CONSENSUS? The fact that you're taking me to ANI over removing deprecated sources among other things means it's hard to assume good faith. I would also note that you didn't answer my question PailSimon (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Statement by Mikehawk10

    To give a bit of background as to my involvement on the

    Uyghur genocide
    article, I was the one who initially created it as a new editor as a part of a class assignment in 2019. That class has since terminated, and I have gained a bunch more experience on Wikipedia since then. The class generally sparked an interest of mine in the topic area, and I've kept following it in the news, as the facts on the ground have changed into what we have access to now. After a decent amount of time away from Wikipedia, I returned and then began to edit articles, including ones related to the topic area.

    From the beginning of

    Uyghur genocide article around December of 2020, when the user made an edit that removed a use of the term "Uyghur genocide" and instead substituted "Chinese policies towards the Uyghurs" as a descriptor of the same actions in its place. PailSimon appears to have first edited the corresponding talk page on December 9, 2020. The first day on the talk page, PailSimon declared
    that, "Wikipedia has no standards when it comes to China or any other geopolitical competitor of the West unfortunately."

    The editor has continued to edit with a

    WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset in mind ever since this point. The editor has subsequently affirmed that they do not believe that a genocide is occurring in Xinjiang, writing that the Uyghur genocide is "just accusations." This is certainly their right as an individual. However, editors are required to make edits to Wikipedia that improve articles in line with information provided by reliable sources, not simply their opinions, and PailSimon
    has crossed several lines and repeatedly violated policies against disruptive editing in pushing their own viewpoint, as described in the initial report and as I recapitulate below.

    The editor has removed information cited from

    MOS:CLAIM. After these edits were reverted by Horse Eye's Back, PailSimon reverted
    HEB's reversion.

    The user has also added palpably false information to the article, even when sources already present state the opposite. One example is this edit, in which PailSimon inserted that "the ruling Liberal Party [did] not [cast] a vote either way" on Canada's non-binding recognition statement. This was an addition of false information contradicted by sources already present in the article, and this addition may have served to cast doubt upon Canada's actions as a result of this false information being included. I don't see a reason why this could have been added if the editor had done their due diligence. Later, after the Dutch Parliament issued a similar resolution, PailSimon attempted to remove information from the lead relating both to the Dutch and Canadian Parliament votes.

    The editor has casted aspersions in edit summaries, including here, where PailSimon bizarrely accused NoonIcarus of disruptive editing.

    Overall, it has become clear to me that

    talk) 04:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    There isn't very much different in this statement to Timothy Blues statement so see my own statement above for a response. To respond to the "adding false information" charge, I misread the source admitantly and thought it said that the Liberal Party MPs abstained when in fact it was only the Liberal Party Cabinet that abstained. This was a legitimate mistake on my part and doesn't really deserve all the hoo-ha that Mike is churning up. PailSimon (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And also you have cited one of my edits as violating
    MOS:CLAIM when in reality it supports my edits - "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." PailSimon (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Statement by NoonIcarus

    Before commenting, I'll point out that PailSimon currently has an open sockpuppet investigation request (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician) that I believe should be taken into account in the discussion.

    That being said, and seeking not to repeat much of what has been said, in brief PailSimon has demonstrated disruptive editing and edit warring that needs administrative intervention to stop. They have blanked warnings issued against them in their talk page and accussed other editors of disruptive editing, but has decried

    WP:WIKIHOUNDING
    and "harassment" when their behaviour has been scrutinized.

    For these reasons I think that a ban is an appropriate measure to address the issue and fully support it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Jancarcu

    Due to time constraints and a lack of personal involvement on my part in this issue, I will be abstaining from detailed comment on this issue. Some of PailSimon's edits and behaviours are concerning, while others may be justified. Jancarcu (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Citobun

    I was not involved in any of the many disputes at

    Uyghur genocide), and by casting aspersions against those who question such POV editing. So I agree with OP's concerns and also object strongly to PailSimon's baseless personal attacks against myself and others. Citobun (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Its ironic to me that your evidencless post above accuses me of casting aspersions when you've done exactly that. PailSimon (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence is in my original comment, to which I provided a link. Citobun (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case see my own response to it.PailSimon (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To which I replied thusly. BTW, to get back on topic – I'd like to note that you've still not retracted your baseless personal attacks despite being alerted to Wikipedia policy on the matter. Citobun (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SeePailSimon (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really just re-link to the personal attack rather than retract it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing there that's a personal attack.PailSimon (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that not a personal attack? The difference has already been explained to you. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling somebody a "Hong Kong localist" is an objective description, its not intended to be a value-laden judgment or an insult or any sort of inditement.PailSimon (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that why you followed it up by accusing me of possessing "a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible"? Because that isn't a "value-laden judgement" nor an inditement? Good lord. What disingenuous nonsense. You seem to be incapable of knowing when to stop, and I hope you are indefinitely banned sooner rather than later. Citobun (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note, PailSimon did not provide any evidence for their accusations. This is getting ridiculous. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by TucanHolmes

    This is coming in a bit late, but I couldn't find the time to formulate my statement sooner.

    I regularly check the

    Uyghur genocide
    article for vandalism and patent nonsense, as well as bad-faith and POV edits (which, with such a topic, happen quite often). From what I've seen, PailSimon's edits are definitely aimed at softening any accusations (for example, they repeatedly tried to cut or remove a sourced section about medical experiments, see [119] and [120]), and numerous edits already mentioned in this notice (which I won't relist here) reveal a clear POV. It's not a radical one (they are not outright denying human rights abuses), but it's... favourable towards China, and they seem hell-bent on rewording the lead in a way that focusses less on the genocidal character of the human rights abuses carried out in Xinjang. Their POV-pushing (as far as I can tell) isn't blatant; they usually employ subtler tactics (e.g. misleading edit summaries, see the other statements and comments). Some of their edits are legitimate (like removing G4 categories or removing unreliable sources), which makes it difficult to discern whether their non-legitimate edits were in good or bad faith.

    Comments by other editors

    • Comment: In the list of diffs, I see some legitimate edits (e.g. removal of a G4/CfD category) and some illegitimate edits (e.g. mischaracterization of a source as deprecated). A more detailed listing of diffs with why those edits may have issues (e.g. similar to PailSimon's diff-by-diff response) might be helpful for examining a broader pattern, since not all of the diffs given in the original post are problematic. — MarkH21talk 03:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey
    talk) 04:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reply: Hi Jerm, sorry for the late reply I have limited internet and my mind is foggy atm (see my userpage for an explanation).
    At this point I'd like to see PS banned from China related articles and generally placed on a 1RR restriction, advised to find an uninvolved experienced mentor, and be warned about POV pushing, LISTENing, misleading edit summaries, edit warring, and battlegrounding. (I actually inquired with El C if the page could entirely be placed on a 1RR restriction).
    I'll give a final example of the battlegrounding, misleading statements, edit warring and POV pushing.
    • 23:42, 25 February 2021 Content is added by Mikehawk10 [121] with the no objection from other editors.
    • 08:51, 27 February 2021 Pail Simon removes the content [122] with a misleading edit summary
    • 11:26, 27 February 2021 I start a talk page discussion about restoring the content [123]. Two other editors support the restoration.
    • 16:09, 28 February 2021 Content is restored by Mikehawk10 per support of three editors on the talk page discussion [124]
    • 03:45, 1 March 2021 PailSimon again removes the content [125] with a misleading edit summary.
    • 08:48, 1 March 2021 it is restored by forth editor My very best wishes [126]
    • 11:35, 1 March 2021 PS again removes the content [127] with an insulting and misleading edit summary.
    This has continued right up to now, dispite the talk page discussion and this ANI thread.
    Here they are directly edit warring with four other editors. This edit warring alone should be enough for a block. They've engaged in a similar pattern with others. Combined with the other examples above, I believe it merits the sanction I propose for DE.
    They have shown no indication they are willing to LISTEN in anyway to others, either here or on article talk pages.
    From the above comments and talk page discussions, I am clearly not alone in believing this is a serious problem. I count Czello, Mikehawk10, Normchou, TucanHolmes, El C, Citobun, Jancarcu, NoonIcarus, Horse Eye's Back, My very best wishes, Oranjelo100 plus myself (12 editors) that have recently expressed significant concerns about Pail Simon. The excuses they have given above are simply not believable when the entire pattern is taken into consideration.  // Timothy :: talk  20:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The constant edit warring alone is enough for a block. I would support a topic ban and/or a long-term block but not indefinitely, thanks for the response
    talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Jerm They have placed an edit warring notice on my talk page. My patience is over. This is now NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: This is a completely disingenuous account of the dispute. The content in question has been the result of multiple previous talk page discussions (conveniently omitted here) which concluded that the text in question not be included. This is the relevant context that has been ignored here PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a clarifying note, I only "restored" the page after seeing that the lede had been partially restored on Feb. 28 by another editor. I've also been subject to a bizarre edit warring template being placed on my page by PailSimon for allegedly engaging in "repeated edit warring." —
    talk) 22:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    See my above reply to TimothyBlue. PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It should be noted that
      this conversation, they seemed self-absorbed purely in the process of editorial decisions as a tool to prevent valid edits from being made—e.g., repeating you need to gain a consensus or something in that line without showing any interest in elaborating what actually prevented a consensus from being reached. Normchou 💬 20:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC); edited 02:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    We have reached a very strange point if we are now attacking other editors for discouraging edit warring.... PailSimon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pail Simon may believe that he/she is doing the right thing, but they are clearly ignoring arguments from other editors. The changes seem to reflect his/her own worldview and not Wikipedia policies. I would advise him/her to step away from the article, and stop reverting all the changes. Dimadick (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Brief note by El_C

    I'd like to note that I have also found my interactions with PailSimon on that article talk page to have been, erm, challenging (diff). El_C 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I should have handled myself better there I will admit.PailSimon (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Breif note by Czello

    Unfortunately

    WP:AGF on priority. — Czello 19:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    All you have to do is look on the talk page to see at least two previous talk page discussions regarding the lead. If My very best wishes is not bothered to go and look then he should not be editing the article.PailSimon (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? — Czello 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    There's no way he could have missed it if he actually surveyed the talk page properly, one of the sections is even titled "Revised lede" which is a major hint to say the least. He may have lazily glanced over it but its really impossible to miss if you actually take the time to read the talk page properly. When somebody acts like this its difficult to assume good faith even though you may want to.PailSimon (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @PailSimon: The talk page isn't small, dude. There are currently 32 headings on there. It's very easy to miss a specific conversation. That's why we AGF when someone politely says they couldn't see it. — Czello 21:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually look through it, as opposed to briefly skimming it really is not.PailSimon (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @PailSimon: Do you not think your absolute refusal to see things from other editors' perspectives (and again, your absolute refusal to assume good faith) is at all a problem here? — Czello 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't confuse me not agreeing with you as not seeing things from other's perspective, something I don't see you doing here with me. I get the sense that you're more focused on pointing and wagging the finger at me than anything else. PailSimon (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OWN while you're at it. — Czello 08:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I have always attempted to assume good faith unless when presented with strong evidence to the contrary. Perhaps if you did the same with me there would be less issues.PailSimon (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread, and your editing history, shows you're not doing a good enough job of assuming good faith. Perhaps if you did the same with me there would be less issues -- you realise that you are the common factor in these "issues", right? — Czello 13:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as
    WP:AGF says - "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism".PailSimon (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This is not evidence to the contrary, or vandalism. — Czello 18:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's your personal opinion and unfortunately we are going to have to agree to disagree.PailSimon (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    False edit warring notice placed by PailSimon

    PailSimon has placed an false edit warring notice on my talk page [128]. I have reverted this edit exactly once and it was with the support of four editors. Taken with the above comments towards others, they are clearly harrassing editors now.  // Timothy :: talk  21:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PailSimon really needs to take a time out from editing this page. This is just sheer
    WP:BATTLEGROUND editing now. — Czello 21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    There's nothing false about it (see reply in the 'Comments by other editors' section) PailSimon (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That section makes it fairly clear that you're the one edit warring. — Czello 08:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if you never bothered to read my reply.PailSimon (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for NOTHERE block

    The false edit warring notice placed by PailSimon on my talk page is the last straw for me.

    Per to the above comments regarding:

    • Battlegrounding
    • POV pushing
    • Edit warring
    • Refusal to LISTEN here and on talk pages
    • DE on Uyghur genocide
    • Leaving false edit warring notices on editor talk pages

    I propose PailSimon be blocked as NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  21:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked - discussion may continue I agree the edit-warring notice placed on your page after a single revert, given PailSimon had reverted three times today, is the last straw. I have partially blocked them from
      Uyghur genocide for one month whilst this discussion continues. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Black Kite beat me to it. I endorse this block. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: This is not his first revert.PailSimon (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in the last 24 hours, during which time you have reverted three times. Looking at the last month, he has made five reverts; you have made 21. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse partial block per this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    These are all nonsense accusations debunked above.PailSimon (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have doubts as to the efficacy of partial blocks or TBANS for PS. My impression is that this user feels they are always right. No one is always right, not even me. Their responses here do not engender confidence. If others agree, I would endorse a
      WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. It is always to be hoped that lesser measures will prove effective, but that would depend on the user's willingness to learn and grow. Just don't see it. If CBANned, I would encourage the user to edit constructively on other Wikipedias/WIkimedia projects and then appeal the CBAN in six months. (Assuming they are not blocked elsewhere. Haven't looked.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    "My impression is that this user feels they are always right." - I have actually admitted I was wrong at least two times during this discussion.PailSimon (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Czello 09:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yea reverting back to the stable version will never be edit warring no matter how much you spin it.PailSimon (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep calling it the "stable version" -- I'm not sure you know what that means. There are now 5+ editors who are against you on this. You don't
    WP:OWN the page. — Czello 09:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Only two editors (originally one) opposed on that page. Please follow the discussion carefully.PailSimon (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Only two opposed it? So you agree that consensus is now in favour of including the lead? — Czello 10:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you need to follow and read things carefully. You're confusing two different pages here.PailSimon (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough, I misread there -- though my point stands about your definition of "stable version", which found it's way onto the Uyghur article. — Czello 13:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It really does not if you look at the talk page history going back months.PailSimon (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. — Czello 17:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Luckily for me it has not then.PailSimon (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Czello, you are correct that 5+ editors have supported inclusion of the content: TimothyBlue and Czello (obviously opposed), Oranjelo100,[129] Mikehawk10,[130] My very best wishes,[131]. I'm sure others would have expressly supported, but didn't both to comment because the consensus was clear. Two admins saw this and imposed a block on PS for edit warring. Now they are just being a timesink disputing what is obvious.  // Timothy :: talk  16:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're wrong. As I have reiterated there are multiple previous talk page discussions regarding that very lead introduction which concluded that it should not be included. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge their existence does not change that.PailSimon (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we and PailSimon are talking about two different things. You and I are talking about the lead for the Uyghur genocide article, whereas he's talking about the Africa-China relations article. Either way, where you and I are concerned, we now have a consensus to include the lead on the Uyghur genocide article, contrary to what PailSimon believes. — Czello 17:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No you're still confused.PailSimon (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • PailSimon, You stated above: "reverting back to the stable version will never be edit warring",[132] - you know this is false and you have been told by multiple admins and editors it is false.  // Timothy :: talk  16:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See my above response.PailSimon (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either an indef NOTHERE block for PailSimon or a siteban, per the evidence provided above. Nsk92 (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban from any articles related to China or Hong Kong at minimum, per the diffs evidenced by Citobun here. Not familiar with their broader editing in regards to a site ban (it should be noted that a NOTHERE block as a result of community discussion is a community site ban). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, having taken a look at some of the talk page comments and removal of sourced material diffs (at the same link) compiled by Timothy and Citobun I'd also support a site ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: Which sourced material diffs are you referring to?PailSimon (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: continuing this thread in the below section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have admitted I was wrong on four separate occasions during this discussion.PailSimon (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have, well done -- but there have been other areas where you doubled-down: such as the aforementioned labeling of good faith edits as disruptive, for example. — Czello 14:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a
      gaming the system (esp. abusing copyright and reliable sources policies, mixed with misleading edit summaries) which necessitates the assumption that their editing is done in bad faith, thus destroying the foundation that allows editors to work collaboratively, i.e. every one of their edits has to be checked in the future. They also refuse to back down, or even just retract personal attacks. In short, their behaviour is incompatible with Wikipedia as a project. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    I have backed down and retracted personal attacks during this very discussion. Have you even read it? If you had you would have seen it.PailSimon (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is misleading. You have not retracted the personal attack noted in the section below. Citobun (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PailSimon is still defending his personal attacks, against which no action has been taken

    The personal attack in question. His continuing defence of this personal attack. Please just ban this person on blatant

    WP:NOTHERE grounds and a seeming inability to acknowledge Wikipedia policy or admit to any wrongdoings. Citobun (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I dont see how calling you a Hong Kong localist is a personal attack, either way it was not intended as one. I have "a seeming inability to acknowledge Wikipedia policy or admit to any wrongdoings"? I have admitted I was wrong at least three times on this page alone and on multiple occasions on other pages. What are you talking about?PailSimon (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So retract the personal attacks against me and TimothyBlue and apologise. Easy. And please stop the disingenuous replies. You did not merely call me a "Hong Kong localist". Citobun (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What personal attack have I made against TimothyBlue? I don't understand what you're referring to here. Its true that I did not merely call you a Hong Kong localist but that's what I called you here and nothing else. Let stop veering off topic.PailSimon (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a feeling you know what I am referring to, considering I already commented on your personal attack against TimothyBlue and you replied to me. So just so we're clear: it has been explained to you what constitutes a personal attack, it has been repeatedly explained to you that you have made personal attacks, and you remain unrepentant. Citobun (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well first I have to actually know what you're referring to but now that I know what is being discussed yes I do retract that TimothyBlue comment and apologize to said user.PailSimon (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment appears a personal attack per
    WP:NPA bullets #2 and #3. However, it does need to be considered in context, which was this comment. I've taken a skim through the diffs listed by Citobun in that discussion. By themselves they obviously demonstrate a pattern of diluting words, which I don't think alone is problematic, but the diluted words no longer represent the sources accurately, which is a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Can you explain by what you mean when you say I dilute words?PailSimon (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. For example this diff even though the source says "sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong" (the new wording appears to make the law seem more legitimate than the source does). Here where the source says "And it was the latest in a quick series of aggressive moves by the pro-Beijing establishment that had the effect of sidelining the pro-democracy movement." And here, more of the same. I'm willing to assume good faith on some of the other dilutions, for example on the argument that the source picked may be biased, or is a primary source, which is true for some of them. But for the 3 examples I cite, and various others, it isn't really true and it's hard to AGF that this is just an attempt to 'restore NPOV', because these edits don't actually represent the sources at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were copyright violations.PailSimon (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Article: The national security law imposed by China on Hong Kong, has curtailed free speech of Hong Kongers both, within the territory and abroad.
    Source: The national security law that China has imposed on Hong Kong is already curtailing speech in the territory
    Your edit: It has been described as curtailing free speech of Hong Kongers both, within the territory and abroad.
    2. Article: anyone criticizing China and traveling to Hong Kong automatically becomes potentially eligible to be arrested
    Source: Anyone who criticises China and travels to Hong Kong is potentially at risk of arrest under the new law.
    Your edit: anyone violating the law and traveling to Hong Kong automatically becomes potentially eligible to be arrested.
    3. Article: on a wave of
    massive protests against the government and concerns about the sweeping new national security law
    imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong.
    Source: sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong
    Your edit: on a wave of
    massive protests against the government and concerns about the sweeping new national security law
    legislated by the Beijing government.
    You were correcting copyright violations? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The third edit you list is evidently a copyright violation as both the source and the article contain the phrase "sweeping new national security law imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong". The first edit was just me applying
    WP:ATTRIBUTION and the second one was improved wording as the content was vague (what on earth does criticising china mean in this context?)PailSimon (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That is in no way a copyright violation; re-using a single phrase misses the bar for that by a country mile. I am less and less inclined to assume good faith, and believe this is an instance of
    Gaming the system. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    If I read
    WP:COPYVIO I get the impression that copying word for word an 11 word long phrase counts as a copyvio. PailSimon (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This does not violate copyright; for that matter, it's not even plagiarism. Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism § What is not plagiarism:

    Plagiarism is less a concern where the content both lacks creativity and where the facts and ideas being offered are common knowledge. [...] phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information [...] lack sufficient creativity to require attribution.

    Besides, this is a red herring: If it was the copyright violation you were concerned about, rewording it in such a minor way doesn't change anything.
    Please stop Wikilawyering! It is obvious that you're using these guidelines as cover for POV editing. You're wasting everyone's time (including your own). TucanHolmes (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COPYVIO makes clear that this is a copyvio. You're not allowed to copy and paste sentences into articles from sources.PailSimon (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Even if we assume that this is a copyright violation (I would argue it isn't), this doesn't change the fact that your edits don't address that issue. From the policy you yourself cited:

    Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism.

    As I've mentioned above, this is a red herring. ProcrastinatingReader already asked you that same question in the beginning, and I've now explained the problem in excruciating detail, yet you still haven't answered anything; you're deflecting. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be right and I should have rephrased it more thoroughly to deal with the copyright problem.PailSimon (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no copyvio. But by your own admission above all you did was insert your POV, you did not correct what you are claiming is a copyright problem.  // Timothy :: talk  13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There certainly was a copyvio (that is evident per the above TucanHolmes provided copyvio quotation) and I attempted to fix it although it was a somewhat inadequate fix as noted above. What pov did I insert exactly? I simply rephrased the article while retaining the exact same semantic content.PailSimon (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I doubled down so harshly; in retrospect, I should've explained it like that in the first place. Copyright is a difficult topic :(. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have the time right now to go through this entire thread, but this section alone is enough. The "Hong Kong locals" bit may include a geographic objectivity, but the rest, "your editing practices which includes a single-minded dedication to demonising China as much as humanely possible", that is just a blatant violation of

    WP:AGF. That's from a week or more ago, and I wouldn't have blocked for it now, but PailSimon had to go and defend it, and play ignorant. I refuse to accept that they didn't realize what they were saying, and that makes this move back into blockable territory. The claim of copyright violation is ridiculous, and the charge of "watering down" is acceptable because example and context for these POV edits are provided. If everyone, including some seasoned editors, says "not a copyvio", then maintaining that it is one is either obstinate or incompetent. In both cases, it's disruptive. I blocked PailSimon for a week. As I was placing that I saw that this comes on the heels of a partial block a few days ago, by Black Kite, and that makes a NOTHERE block seem even more reasonable; Black Kite, I wonder if you have any thoughts on that--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Drmies I blocked them from that article because they were being utterly disruptive on it; I am fine with any other sanctions that there are consensus for, obviously. Personally, I think we are looking at a China topic ban at the least. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass reverts

    Hippeus has a habit of mass reverting edits I have made on this article. He has done it here. [136] He has also done it in the past. [[137]]; [138]; [139]; [140]. As you can imagine, it is disheartening and impossible to make constructive improvements to an article when they are deleted without distinction, particularly when 1RR limits the amount of change one can make. Jontel (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jontel has a habit of edit-warring against consensus, for was sanctioned before, on the Atzmon article. He has been removing reliable sources, and has prefixed reliable sources, diff, with: "A number of Jewish commentators responded negatively...", all the while adding extensive content from Atzmon's website. His response has been amazing:

    " Almost all the other sources are not reliable or bitterly hostile, which affects their reporting. I do not think I am downplaying antisemitism. It is mentioned dozens of times in the article. The commentators were all Jewish. While this would normally not be relevant, it is relevant here where the discussion is around differing views of Jewish identity."

    So according to Jontel, reputable media and scholars are "bitterly hostile". And "Jewish". In the recent bout he has been reintroducing content that was rejected by consensus last May-July.
    Jontel has been warned this month by User:Nomoskedasticity for vandalism on David Miller (sociologist) and by warned by User:Pigsonthewing for original research on Emma Barnett. Jontel running to ANI after a single challenge of his edits is quite an escalation. Jontel is unable to edit these topics neutrally. --Hippeus (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been edit warring against consensus; rather Hippeus took it upon himself last year to revert repeatedly all changes en masse without consultation with anyone. Recently, other editors and I (mainly me) on Gilad Atzmon have been working to make the article more balanced instead of it being a highly critical near attack page. Again, Hippeus, who has not been involved recently, came in and reversed all the changes without justification. He should bring up content issues on the Talk page, but has failed to do so. Obviously, one does not include all reliable sources just because they are there if there is repetition. My description of the commentators was non-judgemental, relevant and accurate: Hippeus is perfectly at liberty to edit it or raise it on the Talk page. As the subject was what Atzmon said, using material from his website illustrated the issues and is permitted under
    WP:SELFPUB. I don't know why Hippeus should think it surprising that commentators take a strong view; it is in the nature of the subject. I did not vandalize David Miller (sociologist) and have asked User:Nomoskedasticity what change caused concern and not yet received a reply. I do not think I used original research on Barnett; I was quoting from the sources. This is all a diversion from the main point. How can anyone and why should anyone work to improve articles on Wikipedia when editors like Hippeus can descend at any time and reverse large amounts of consensual changes with mass reverts lacking any justification? This breaks all the rules of editors working together. Jontel (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    There is no consensus for Jontel's rewrite of the article. In May 2020 there was a clear consensus that Jontel's edits were tendentious, with User:RolandR, User:Drsmoo, User:Tritomex, User:Bobfrombrockley, and myself all agreeing against these changes. My actions were with in consensus. Jontel is breaking 1RR. I think this recent comment by User:SlimVirgin on Jontel's editing:

    You're making edits in at least two articles about how many people did or didn't die, and you're edit-warring to retain a certain Holocaust-denial aspect.

    on a the page of Nicholas Kollerstrom and some other page is relevant. Using self-published material by Holocaust deniers is an unacceptable standard of source use, and Jontel has clear issues on the wider topic.--Hippeus (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Attack page" is in the eye of the beholder. It's not suprising views of Atzmon are polarised given that its essentially an extension of
    WP:ARBPIA. Jontel, what's your justification for removing mentions of holocaust denial? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I have reverted the changes pending discussion on the talk page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What mentions of Holocaust denial are you referring to? Jontel (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=1009286750&oldid=1009281937.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I have imposed an indefinite

    WP:ACDS action. El_C 22:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The talk page on Gilad Atzmon contains only few recent comments by either Jontel, or Hippeus. ANI reports should not occur before trying engaging in a discussion. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheLionHasSeen

    User:TheLionHasSeen has made a particularly harmful comment against a user here: Talk:Texas#History section too specific. The comment claimed a user is pushing a "WP:Agenda of White supremacy as evidenced by their contribution history, targeting anything that goes against racial viewpoints of theirs, in particular". He then provided evidence that in no way backs this egregious claim. He attacked this user to silence them and interfere the discussion process in a talk page and appears to be attempting to dig up something on me, as said here, "Please investigate further Iamreallygoodatcheckers." This conduct is very inappropriate and his response was not to remove his comment or give a strong apology, but to continue to try and prove his point with more evidence that also fails to prove the user was a white supremacist. This conduct directly damages the discussion process in a talk page by quite literally scaring users that they will be labeled with a term as damaging as "white supremacy" if they were to contribute to a discussion. I'm not sure what should be done in this situation, but at the very least the user needs to be given a firm warning, which I have tried to do. Clear violation of WP:No personal attacks. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon me, but are we not currently still discussing this on the discussion page? If one can reason with me, with citations and philosophy, I am willing to act on good faith. I did not seek to attack them, nor to silence them, but made the statement that it appeared to be an agenda being pushed, with behavioral evidence among other things. I have neither dug up anything upon you, and neither made reference to you. I was instructing you to further investigate the other contributor and their contributions to Wikipedia. This is all now appearing to be either a trolling of me, or very poor communication. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I further add, this began with starting dialogue on reaching consensus with the article, and I as a contributor to that article had every right to participate. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your right that it was a misunderstanding that you were trying to find something on me, I apologize for saying that now. But none of that changes you comments, which is the concern here, about the other user. Yes the discussion is still going on in the talk page, but attacking someone like that is not appropriate or helpful to that discussion. You can't just be going around saying someone is pushing an agenda of white supremacy when the evidence is not clear, like in this case. You have every right to participate like me or anyone else does in that discussion, and I want you to participate, but you attacked someone and I'm you worried may attack me or another user.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not wish to forgo the contents of what was previously written, so here is what was better off written before the edit conflict here: Pardon me, but in response, this character was alleged in good faith and the term appear to refers to the allegation, upon participating in behavioral contributions pertaining to the anti-thesis of white supremacy with several articles related to the Horn of Africa by other non-related contributors (and again, notice the anti-thesis of it, where they attempt to utilize similar behaviors of two polar opposites). Further responding, I have provided extended contribution history pertaining to them, and per
    WP:blue, I am quite sure in 2021 character traits may be obvious with anyone's contribution history. In my personal instance I am termed a "historical and citation geek with dabs of philosophical intent" by several peers after reviewing my contributions here on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, continuing, I did not seek to attack them, nor silence them. I have also neither "dug up" any information on you, nor made reference to doing such; I have no time to investigate the wiki contributions of someone that does not warrant such a need (I participate often in sockpuppet investigations as a reporter and watchdog for Horn of Africa related articles, which is why in detail, and that was apparently volunteered upon me through consistent vandalism on such articles). Reading the discussion, I made no intent of seeking out any information you whatsoever, so that is a great and dangerous accusation of highest intent personally, and makes it seem as if one is a stalker, and that is horrible in my personal opinion. You were merely instructed to further investigate the other contributor through their contributions to this online encyclopedia. I fear this is now an instance of trolling or poor communication, moreso poor communication. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Now, that such rewritten defense has been published, it is quite alright as life is full of misunderstanding. Please refer to my revised comment which was intended to be published before the edit conflict, as I utilized
    WP:blue as a further defense of the commentary, in addition to the very detailed basis pertaining to claiming their appearance of an agenda being pushed. Thank you, and why personally attack you or others, or even them when there is no basis to do so? I have dealt with an issue similar to this I believe. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Just to clarify I have apologized for saying he was trying to find something on me, I apologized above. I'm not claiming that he's stalking me or anything of that nature. My concern is with his unwarranted attack on a different user as I have stated above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, understand again, I have not verbatim said the contributor was a white supremacist but had the appearance of one, which has been the argument this whole time. I believe you are reading with emotion into my text written here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You believing that user has an appearance of white supremacy was not at all relevant to the discussion in that talk page. Under, WP:No personal attacks your not supposed to use someones political beliefs, even if there not mainstream, to invalidate their argument. Technically, even though white supremacy is disliked by you and me and many others it doesn't invalidate someone from editing Wikipedia. But thats all beyond the point because that user hasn't added anything condoning white supremacy and your speculation is wrong. Also I'm not aware of that user committing any policy violation. If you weren't trying to belittle them and silence their opinion, then why did you feel it was appropriate to ever bring that up? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be upon discerning the apparent motives through contribution history, I would argue, respectfully. I am not intending to invalidate their argument, but their contribution history as espoused within detail on that article's talk page appears to do it for them, fellow Wikipedian. Please reread the context of what has been explained several times before as well, before asking such a question in that manner, and making accusations of silencing them. They appear to have gotten tired of Wikipedia before I ever involved myself - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have yet to respond, I am sleeping. It is past midnight here. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "User:TheLionHasSeen has made a particularly harmful comment against a user" The user in question is User:NorfolkIsland123, but neither of you bothered to inform him/her that the conversation concerns them. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I would have thought it virtually impossible with their claim of quitting Wikipedia for its accused liberal bias of non-factual information. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not directly left a comment on NorfolkIsland123's talk page. I have pinged their name at least once on the Texas talk page, but I think they should be notified of this discusssion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Walled garden around Mika Simmons

    • Mika Simmons
    • Gynaecological Cancer Fund
    • Lady Garden Campaign

    A trio of promotional pieces.

    WP:SPAs, so it may be worth doing a sock check--my money is on all being connected to Alabama73, or at least to one another. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I've indeffed Alabama73 from editing the Mika Simmons article as this editor claims to be the subject of the article. Editing by Alabama 73 at the other two articles has not been investigated, but it may be that a similar sanction is needed there. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking at Simmons' biography now. A major problem is that there is citable information, but a lot of it is in the
    take things easy and not go on the "COI Editor! Spam! Spam! Spam! Get Rid!" rampage just yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:RS for the elusive "chosen as one of 40 inspirational women to front L’Oréal Lancôme's powerful women campaign" which seems too precise to be a total fantasy but is untraceable except to connected sources or wiki mirrors. But I find she has already been indef blocked, while this ANI was open. PamD 16:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    AFC help desk to get assistance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Ritchie333 Ah, Thanks. I think I read that but didn't register it - first time I've seen an article-specific block like that. PamD 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's apparent that Ms. Simmons is still under the impression that Wikipedia is a venue for promotion of herself and her charity work [143] (By the way, I'd check that post to PamD's page to make sure there's no copyright violation therein; I'm seeing a lot of identical content at [144], though I don't know which came first). When that's the misapprehension, every removal of inappropriate content and each warning against its restoration are viewed as personal attacks. The decision to remove her from autobiographical involvement is justified, as is greater attention to the satellite articles. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Different user: KillerWhaleGuy

    Hello Sea Captain? KillerWhaleGuy here, with apologies if I may not have seen or responded to much of the discussion about my first foray into Wikipedia editing, which obviously has not gone well. As I've tried to explain elsewhere, I've used Wikipedia for years and some of these articles for as long and yet I've never tried to edit. I have clearly made many mistakes. But as I've expressly assured the Wikipedia folks, I have absolutely no association with the subjects or previous editors. I just want the proper story told, as it is known to us here in the Pacific Northwest. Our newspapers and television news documented the Luna and Springer stories on an almost daily basis, and all of those orca articles have been preserved by government and non-government organizations. If not with active links, then they are easily retrievable. And as a new editor I've relied on a book documenting all of these events, which won Fortune Magazine's "Best Nature Non-Fiction" award, "OPERATION ORCA: Springer, Luna and the Struggle to Save West Coast Killer Whales." Its references and other news reports of the two years of Luna's life and his increased interactions with humans are absolutely critical to his life story. Its omission is glaring. Again, my apologies for fumbling through this first experience editing on Wikipedia, but I believe in the platform and hope to contribute regularly. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, my opinion as regards any similarities between some of these articles is that I have slso noticed that there are some similarities, and that would not surprise me. Perhaps that is because the same author/s produced the Springer (orca) and Luna (killer whale) pages? That would be a reasonable expectation as both of those orca efforts overlapped with the same Seattle people involved, including Michael Harris, Fred Felleman, and Jeff Foster. My guess might be someone involved with the charity orgs OrcaLab in BC or Orca Conservancy in Seattle at that time, almost twenty years ago? I am aware of the groups and have supported their efforts, as a guy who loves killer whales!! But I know Orca Conservancy especially used to be all over the news here in the Pacific Northwest during these orca rescues and that could've prompted any one to author articles. I think as long as they followed Wikipedia rules it seems the only important thing is that their contributions are properly cited to reliable sources. Upon reading Springer, it appears they are properly cited and reliable. With few exceptions, Springer also seems to be written in an objective, neutral way. Thanks again for this discussion and I'll keep checking in for responses. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    conflict of interest (likely), but regardless, the problem is that your editing do come across as advocacy, which, indeed, those pages seem to have have sustained a lot of over the years. So, that remains a problem, I'm afraid. El_C 04:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Thank you for the clarification and response. Following closely a charitable organization should not disqualify me for conflict of interest, no more than an author following closely any subject he/she edits would disqualify. My read of the rules is that it does not constitute COI. But in full transparency I wanted to respond to the question put to me. And to be clear -- I am NOT currently a member of Orca Conservancy, and my support for the group has only been in the form of volunteering for events in the past. It has been at least 10 years since I have done that. The fact is, I followed closely every group and government agency involved in these orca rescues here in the Pacific Northwest, including the media reports on Michael Parfit and Suzanne Chisholm, both negative and positive. The COI here if any appears to be someone associated with the primary subjects of the article now and to promote their commercial documentaries, as each edit that includes reliably cited material noting their non-permitted interaction (called "controversial" by the LA Times but described as "stewardship" by the editors/authors) continues to be removed from this article. My intent on this article is not to take sides on the matter, but certainly to not allow an editor or editors associated with this important article diminish the critical role of others and elevate themselves. IF I CONTINUE TO BE BLOCKED from editing this article and anything you call "whale-esque," I will need have a clearer reason why that is the case. Outside of some form issues, which I admit and will correct, I am not outside the rules. PLEASE UN-LOCK THESE ARTICLES and allow me an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia, as I've been trying to do. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    HELLO ALL... This is KillerWhaleGuy, a new editor to Wikipedia, and YES, I have in fact been attempting to communicate on the labyrinth of fora associated with Wikipedia. The content I have added and in some case restored are and were absolutely verifiable and cited to reliable sources. On the other hand, the substantial current content attributed to Michael Parfit and Suzanne Chisholm, with the resulting product looking like a promotion for their films. And YES, as I've admitted, I mistakenly listed all of my edits as "minor" and have been advised on avoiding that for future contributions. It will not happen again. But I certainly plan on continuing my contributions to the Luna (killer whale) article and any related pages that may have been improperly edited. This is not a matter of conduct, but learning the protocols. And again, to be expressly clear, I have no association with the subjects or previous editors on these pages, with the possible exception of perhaps using the same common server with a previous editor here at a very large, public business (I do not own) in Seattle, which provides free WiFi to scores of customers, clients and tenants every day. I am simply a Washington resident who has followed orca stories in this region for decades, particularly the rescue attempts of the orcas Springer and Luna, led by local groups and individuals like Jeff Foster, Michael Harris, Fred Felleman, Paul Spong, OrcaLab and Orca Conservancy. Those who followed the Luna story also know that several publications at the time, including the Los Angeles Times and the award-winning book OPERATION ORCA (Harbour Press), included notable criticisms of Parfit and Chisholm's interactions with Luna, which they documented and made into their film. The Times called it a "controversial proposal" to become Luna's "Human Pod," and a top scientist expressed deep concerns about potential harm they would cause. And yet, that content continues to be removed by an editor without explanation. We in the Pacific Northwest take our orca stories very seriously, and so this article will continue to see changes. I will continue to get better up to speed on the rules of the Wikipedia Community and contribute to this and other articles. And I will do a better job of communicating when I do. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    edit requests for any and all affected pages, at least for the time being, until we figure out what's what. El_C 23:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)]][reply
    ]
    I would respectively ask that no restrictions be placed on my editing, and that you don't "nuke the whales." Wikipedia needs to have neutral and unabridged articles on these stories. After the blocks are lifted from my editing, if I fail to follow style, protocols or rules of the Community, then block me permanently. But I promise you I won't. I've learned a lot in the last couple of weeks. I will look for your decision here on this Notice Board. Thank you. KillerWhaleGuy (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    partial blocks, whose duration I've set not to expire. But, as mentioned on your talk page, if another uninvolved admin sees it different, we can certainly look into maybe adjusting these, possibly even lifting them outright. To reiterate, I don't think that's likely to happen, but am more than happy to give it more time, just in case, before concluding this portion of the report. El_C 00:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    As a refresher to any passing admins who don't know why a partial block was imposed, per previous threads at ANI: this is KWG's edit history: [145]. It was comprised of two interests, the addition of copyright violation content to

    WP:COI doesn't necessarily need to be proven. The activity speaks for itself. 2601:188:180:B8E0:2C2B:FB39:A295:F543 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Editor refuses to communicate, adds unverifiable information, falsely marks all edits as minor

    User:Wilkja19's editing strikes me as seriously problematic:

    1. they make changes to articles without ever providing reliable sources
    2. they never explain their changes in edit summaries
    3. they falsely mark all their edits as minor
    4. they have never responded to any attempt at communicating with them, in just under three years of editing. Not a single post on an article talk page; not a single post on a user talk page; not a single response to any of the many messages that have been left for them.

    Their conduct has been discussed before ([146],[147]) They have been blocked twice for their failure to communicate, the second time indefinitely, but were unblocked on 22 January by User:Nyttend who stated that they have "done nothing wrong".

    I think it is clear that they are doing many things wrong. They are violating core content and conduct policies. Their total refusal to communicate is simply incompatible with participation in a community. The mere fact of marking every single edit as minor without ever providing an edit summary is disruptive. Lack of a summary prevents the building of trust that comes with seeing that someone is doing what they say they are doing; marking an edit as minor when it is not is explicitly not doing what you say you are doing.

    So I am raising this here again. I think that communication between editors is essential and nobody has the right to opt out of this. If their changes were not marked as minor, and if they provided reliable sources, I would still be troubled by their refusal to communicate. But these things all together, I cannot see how it can be tolerated. I think that blocking this user until they respond to communications is necessary.

    On their talk page, there are arguments that the software they are using to edit is culpable somehow for their refusal to communicate. The software may, it seems, not give them a notification when a message is left for them; it does not prevent them from leaving edit summaries or providing reliable sources, nor compel them to mark their edits as minor. And they are not obliged to use the software in any case.

    Andesitic (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor was subject to two community discussions and unblocked accordingly. The content changes they make on their account are not problematic -- throughout the AN/ANIs/user talk messages I've reviewed several and would be happy making those changes on my own account. Their editing is within policy. No, they often do not provide an inline citation with their changes. But they change/add entries in tables, which do not have any citations to begin with (which is completely normal for tables). Policy does not require citations for everything (as explained at
    WP:MINREF
    ). Their changes are correct nevertheless. For example:
    Nevertheless, all the above edits (which improve the content of the encyclopaedia for our readers), some of which are supported by existing sources on the article and simply updated, have been reverted by
    WP:CHALLENGE
    .
    As for the communication issue, progress has been made on T275117, T274404 (currently high priority) & T275118, so hopefully that will be solved soon. In the meantime, this editor does not get any notifications of talk messages, pings, and does not see the message of block messages, due to the awfully designed app they're using. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their editing is not within policy. Adding information without a reliable source violates a
      WP:CONSENSUS
      .
    • I have not done anything indiscriminately.
    • The software the user is using does not prevent them from communicating or leaving edit summaries, nor compel them to mark edits as minor. Those behaviours are the user's choice.
    Andesitic (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How are they supposed to know that they should be doing those things, if they've never received any of our messages telling them to do so? It should be mentioned explicitly that this is the official WMF iOS app. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By doing what many of the rest of us do, look at their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would they know a talk page even exists? The link to it is hidden within the settings. You wouldn't know to look for one unless you knew the concept of a "talk page" is a thing on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is? I do not recall having to change any settings when I created an account, just click on the talk page tab. But maybe you are right, as I see not one talk page post, either to theirs or on articles. So what is to be done if a user is not communicating?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed only a handful of user talk edits (and most of those spam or edits to other users' pages), and zero, count 'em, zero article talk page edits from any iOS app user in the past 30 days. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. For user talk pages you need to go into the menu, settings, user, then "Your talk page", iirc. I only know that because I actively hunted through the app to find the link to my talk page, because I already knew what a talk page was and wanted to find the link. If I didn't know what one was there's no reason I'd think to try, never mind check it regularly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh I think I see, I use a PC, so I presume its different.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's truly a miracle the project has survived this long with the Foundation's paid developers working so hard to undermine it at every turn. EEng 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adversity powers evolution. Levivich harass/hound 00:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we blocked all the app users, that would probably get the WMF to spend some money to update the app. It's within the community's power to decide what software people can and cannot use to edit (we already regulate this via policy). I'm not sure it's fair to block any one user for using the app, though. Levivich harass/hound 17:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It sounds like this iOS app is severely flawed. But to reemphasise my point, the problem is the user, and not the app. From the recent changes link, one can see that the app does not prevent anyone from leaving edit summaries, or compel anyone to mark edits as minor. I see iOS app users responding to messages, noting that they have been blocked. This user is making the choice that they will not communicate. I cannot see any reason to tolerate this. It seems to me that anyone who will not communicate cannot be here to build an encyclopaedia. Andesitic (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Will you please read the last 1/3 of this thread before repeating all that yet again? EEng 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If you think I missed some salient point, then say what it is. Andesitic (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion makes clear that your determination to ascribe motive to an iOS user is unjust. EEng 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't make that clear. The app they are using does not prevent them from leaving edit summaries. It does not force them to falsely mark their edits as minor. It does not prevent them from providing reliable sources as required by
    WP:V. And nothing is compelling them to even use the app. Andesitic (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It does prevent them from knowing that we want them to do all those things, unless they stumble onto their difficult-to-find talk page by accident, or sometimes edit using a web browser. That's the point. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't prevent that. They are able to read policy, guideline and help pages just as anyone else is. It only impedes them from receiving messages. Do you consider them exempt from the rules? They are obviously not going to change their disruptive editing behaviour, so that seems to me the choice - declare them exempt from the rules, or block them until they agree to follow them. Andesitic (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that is simply not true. The IOS app makes it easy to do one thing: to access articles and edit them. Doing anything else is extremely laborious, and is actually only doable if one already has a substantial knowledge of the structure of Wikipedia and the necessary navigational concepts it requires. It does absolutely nothing to help a novice editor, or even an intermediate one, go "behind the scenes" and participate as a member of the Wikipedia community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the app genuinely prevents users from even seeing policy and guideline pages, then it is clearly totally inadequate and should not be used by anyone. The problem remains that this user is editing disruptively and is obviously not going to stop unless some action as taken. Andesitic (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not "prevent" you from seeing policy pages, etc. If you know what they're called, you can (laboriously) input them into the search bar and get to them, but that assumes that you already are aware of them and know what they're called, or what shortcut to use. It doesn't "prevent", but it also doesn't in any way facilitate it. And that IOS app users can't see a message flag is downright counter-productive. What the heck were the developers thinking? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ignorantia juris non excusat", then? -- 2001:16B8:148F:BC00:3DF5:6CFA:1ED5:3E4F (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So (I ask again) what are we to do, allow (what is in effect) bad editing practice because we can't tell them it is?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But I am also concerned about Andesitic, as they seem to have taken it upon themselves to undo Wilkja19, over the issue of no edit summaries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have undone, in total, twelve of their edits, because they did not provide a reliable source, were not explained, and were falsely marked as minor. These issues make it impossible to trust those edits, and this editor. That is the whole basis of the issue here.
    As for what to do, I cannot see any argument against blocking this editor. The alternative is to specifically state that certain users are exempt from the rules, because of the software they use to access Wikipedia. That would seem crazy to me. Andesitic (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ON pages you do not seem to have edited before, so yes it does look like you are targeting them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider Andesitic's actions towards Wilkja (for example, reverting indiscriminately every single one of their contribs since 21 February for minor/edit summary, especially when all of them were correct) to be harassment (see
    WP:BOOMERANG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And he's still going! Special:Diff/1009533705 & Special:Diff/1001759662 (verification). revert. To a list with no sources (as is usual for lists)! The hounding is obvious. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not doing anything indiscriminately. I have undone twelve edits which did not provide a reliable source, were not explained, and were falsely marked as minor, because these edits were harmful. What is your motivation for so aggressively defending this harmful editor? All they need to do is provide reliable sources, write edit summaries, and not mark major edits as minor. Andesitic (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wow, this has really opened a can of worms. I'm glad someone is on top of it. Perhaps I need to look again at some of my dealings with anons. Deb (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure HOUND applies here. The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. If an editor has made a recent series of unsourced edits, and refused to comment on said edits, then it is reasonable to address the issue. Ideally by finding source but often by removal. If the editor is using an editing program that doesn't notify them when others revert their edits and try to ping them, well I don't see how that is on the editor trying to fix a problem. Springee (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It applies because the edits are correct and are all verifiable. The content
      WP:CHALLENGE requires consideration of the state of the article or portion of the content before tagging or considering removal, and even then advises finding a reference yourself. Ergo, the 'tracking to prevent disruption' does not apply, because their edits aren't disruptive. Andesitic simply has it out for Wilkja (repeated in their "harmful editor", "clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia", etc rhetoric above, and when they were edit warring over an admin-placed notice claiming it was false). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      To emphasise the point, if Andesitic really cared about 'verification' he would've removed the entire list at Randy Zisk, rather than just Wilkja's edits. Similar thing applies for every single other one of his reverts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)Regardless of why the editor was not replying to questions about their edits, it looks like the Andesitic was concerned about a legitimate problem. Even if you feel they were misguided, the "no overridingly constructive reason" clause would come into play here. That said, it would be best if they stopped until the community figures out a better way to handle this. I can certainly see how an editor would be frustrated if they made the usual good faith efforts to contact and editor and talk about a problem and received radio silence in reply. Prior to this discussion I would certainly have taken this to be something other than good faith. I've also been concerned when I see editors marking so many edits as minor. Again, perhaps that is an failing of an edit program vs the editor themselves. Springee (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I would point out these are not stand-alone lists (which is what our policies on lists apply to) but to lists within an article. But I would (as I have said) agree they only seem to have an issue with one editor adding unsourced content to these articles. Yes I think that they should leave the user alone until we figure out how to deal with the communications issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no material on Wikipedia that does not need to be verifiable. Inline citations may not in some cases be essential but verifiability always is.
      Honestly this seems quite straightforward to me. The user is misleadingly marking all their edits as minor, not providing reliable sources, and has never written a single edit summary. Is this behaviour harmful? Yes it is. Will the user change their behaviour? They have been asked to, and it is clear that they will not. So what can be done? Either allow them to continue, or block them until they acknowledge the need to change their editing style. Lesser remedies than blocking will not have any effect because the user refuses to communicate. Why should anyone be allowed to make unsourced, unexplained, misleadingly marked changes? Andesitic (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You're getting awful close to
      WP:IDHT territory. EEng 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    When these users are blocked, they do get to see the block message right? Like, a block message saying outstanding notices on your talk page here [link] require your attention, and so on. El_C 22:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C: Nope. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Total impenetrability, that's just lovely. Sigh. El_C 23:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the user has a confirmed email address then (by default at least) they will get an email for each talk page message and ping. Wilkja19 does not have a confirmed email address. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For the confused, here's how the various platforms differ (thanks to ProcrastinatingReader for testing the iOS stuff):

    Comparison of communication features as of Feb 2021
    Editor "New message" alert Other alerts Custom block messages Custom edit filter messages
    Desktop (IP) Orange bar of doom No Yes Yes
    Desktop (User) Miniature orange bar of doom Yes Yes Yes
    Mobile Web (IP) No No Yes Yes
    Mobile Web (User) Looks like other alerts Yes Yes Yes
    iOS (IP) No (?) No ? Broken; only message name shown (?)
    iOS (User) No No No Broken; only message name shown
    Android (IP) No No Seems flaky No (?)
    Android (User) Yes (w/ ding+vibrate) Yes (w/ ding+vibrate) No No

    So the one way we have to reach this user is to create a page called MediaWiki:We want to talk to you! Follow these steps to reach your talk page: Go to "settings" and tap blah blah blah... and set it as a the warning message of an edit filter that targets this user, and only this user. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We could generalize that to an extent. Create some sort of edit filter for "alert iOS user to check their talk page for a discussion concerning them" and apply it as necessary to catch the attention of iOS users when needed. Then create some sort of system or procedure for when to apply it, with appropriate requirements (ie. there's an active discussion, such as ANI, that requires alerting the user and there's no indication they ever receive talk page messages.) Obviously it's a crude hack, but it's better than nothing - who knows when or if this issue will be fixed? We need some way to attract the attention of iOS-only users. --Aquillion (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be desirable to hold a big RfC where the community asks Arbcom to ask the WMF Board to address the issue? At least we could find out if they know about it, and whether they care, and whether they would commit resources to solving the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the last 100 edits from iOS app users go back about 5 hours. By comparison the last 100 edits from mobile web IP users go back about 15 minutes. So I wouldn't want to focus on just the iOS issue; if this route is taken we should be demand that all the mobile editing interfaces be fixed or disabled.
    For now I think we should just keep commenting at
    WP:VPWMF#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach) so it never gets archived; the lack of any edits to that thread from a (WMF) account is growing more and more conspicuous. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No WMF Board member will read that discussion (unless dragged to it). WMF staffers are irrelevant as history has shown they have to do what their managers direct, and they are presumably encouraged by the Board to focus on shiny new things (or hopelessly naive attempts to "engage" new editors—using an app where they cannot communicate!). Thank you for your efforts clarifying how this works but enwiki discussions will achieve nothing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What a sorry situation. In any case, I've started expanding the table at
    User:Suffusion_of_Yellow/Mobile communication bugs, but I'm still not finished. IIRC they can't see edit notices either! Feel free to fill in any missing parts.
    I'm beginning to warm to the idea of using an edit filter to disable app editing entirely (and maybe logged out mobile web editing, too). As Levivich suggested, just the threat that we might do that would probably encourage swift action, and the filter wouldn't actually ever be turned on. But we'd need a very carefully worded RFC to get community support for this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    So the question is what to do about this editor. As this discussion has been ongoing, they have continued to make edits falsely marked as minor, without edit summaries and without sources. Their editing is disruptive, and nothing about the iOS app compels them to edit in this way or prevents them from understanding how to edit collaboratively. The only thing it does is make it possible that the user does not know they have received messages requesting them to change their behaviour.

    They are clearly not going to stop editing disruptively unless something is done. Doing nothing would mean that by never communicating, they have gained an exemption from normal community standards. So I advocate blocking them until they communicate with the community. Andesitic (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The stronger consensus here is that you should stop reverting them at least while the community figures out what to do about this issue. Yet you have continued. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no such consensus, and I find your aggressive defence of this editor very strange. I will note the similarity of this case to another below where a block is being considered, and a recent case where a block was applied. Andesitic (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOOMERANG headed your way if you don't stop obsessing about this one editor and start attending to improving your own understanding of project policies and guidelines and community norms. If you're smart you'll be quiet now while experienced discuss how to address this general problem. EEng 04:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    POS78

    This user has a long history of moving articles without any form of discussion, let alone

    WP:CONSENSUS
    . I've tried to explain to him a zillion times that he just can't do that, yet that hasn't stopped him. Can a admin please do something about this?

    Some examples:

    [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159]

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but I do not intend to sabotage, I just think there could be a better title in the articles, Well, I try not to repeat it And I use Wikipedia:Requested moves POS78 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What you think is a better title is irrelevant, we have a rule called
    WP:COMMON NAME. You've already said this before [160]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Generally Wikipedia encourages being
    WP:BOLD including with non controversial page moves. I don't have an opinion re the specifics, but I do think after being notified about it, it would be good for POS78 to make an effort and post on talk page, before making a move in the future. If after a week there's no objection, or clear consensus, then make the move? Shushugah (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I promise you this will not happen again And I do not transmit an article without consensus Unless the title is completely wrong, Is that enough for you? POS78 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like POS78 has apologized and promised that the issues will not continue. If they do, please don't hesitate to let me know on my user talk page and I'll be happy to look into it further. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Btw @
    Miral castle back to its original name Château de Miral? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    HistoryofIran -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the beginning of February he has created over 500 new articles. That's quite a lot! It's hard to verify all of them especially when the citations added a lot of the time I have found don't work. I don't know about other people but this feels excessive! Kinda disturbing in a way. Govvy (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of the articles created are lists in which the text of the entries in the list are copied and pasted from existing articles without giving attribution, for example List of caves in Jamaica. --John B123 (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    InvestigativeNews

    Told to take this here from

    WP:AIV; thought it was obvious spam. User:InvestigativeNews is spamming nonsense, possibly legal threats (although it is impossible to tell), across various talk pages. See Special:Contributions/InvestigativeNews. I am inexperienced, so if more detail is necessary, can provide. Urve (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    It looks like they want to add information about a lawsuit, not make legal threats, at least from what I see. The trouble is that the lawsuit does not seem to be covered in RS. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I read their messages as entirely just raising awareness for the lawsuit to random people, not trying to get inclusion somewhere. Mea culpa. As for legal threats, I didn't think they were, but AIV admin said it's possible so just wanted to include it if possible. Possibly shared by many people based on "we" on their talk. Urve (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with 331dot. They're not making legal threats. However it does look like a single purpose account and has failed to heed recommendations on
    WP:SUSPECT Shushugah (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Also, that username is dodgy to say the least. Deb (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for the username currently, however I do have concerns with their editing as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    12 O'Clock Boyz doesn't even seem like it should exist, the only sources are to the US Copyright Office. ValarianB (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My thought also. I've AFDed it. Executive summaries of the lawsuits mentioned in the AFD can be found at User talk:InvestigativeNews, above my {{Afd notice}}. Narky Blert (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to question if this user
    is here to build an encyclopedia. See this recent edit to the AFD: here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Four keep !votes in one AFD might be considered excessive. Especially with the tone of that last one. Narky Blert (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the user created a new account, User:Matt at InvestigativeNews, rather than waiting for a rename. They are claiming to work as a journalist, but have not actually declared their COI or if they are a paid editor. Plus their comment Please do not disturb this Contributor with trivial matters does not inspire confidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I believe this should be looked at.  // Timothy :: talk  18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Leechjoel9

    Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Leechjoel9 discusses politely on issues related to Eritrea, but repeatedly reverts, removing sourced material from articles, and in discussing on talk pages, does not appear to understand

    WP:NOTCENSORED
    :

    WP:NOTCENSORED. S/he has been aware since late January 2021 that Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War
    was the consensus point of view at the Tigray War article (anti-consensus POVs can still be included, of course).
    Again,
    WP:NOTCENSORED
    .
    Leechjoel9 accepted to talk: Talk:Asmara#Notable people; Talk:Asmara#Notable people again, but the most recent restoral of Tedros to the list was again reverted by Leechjoel9.

    Leechjoel9 has been aware of Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions since late January.

    There's obviously nothing wrong with an editor presenting the POV of the Eritrean government, but not to the degree of using fringe or weakly sourced points of view to exclude the generally higher quality sourced points of view. This is a tricky case, because the editor engages in discussion that is polite and makes statements that generally appear reasonable, but the reasonable statements are vague and evade the issues, ignore most of the specific points made by me and other editors, and the statements and reverts don't seem to acknowledge Wikipedia policy. The actions by this editor constitute a timesink, appearing to suggest that s/he

    owns several articles, with the right to exclude unapproved material; s/he does not appear willing to accept NPOV. My suggestion is a topic ban. Otherwise, Wikipedia Eritrea-related articles risk looking like an advertisement for the Eritrean government, in some cases (population) sourced from bare urls rather than dated, archived, up-to-date specific references. Boud (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • wikipedia:ACDS
      . Which means users must pertain level of caution when making edits to these articles. Most importantly reach consensus before making controversial edits or edits that affects large parts the articles. From my knowledge the subjects that are covered in this dispute are:
    • Eritrea- Dispute started when the user wanted to include accusations of Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War, which is an ongoing conflict in Ethiopia. These allegations are one sided, not neutral, not verified and are views or/and allegations by certain individuals that are involved in the war/conflict. These accusations have not been verified and confirmed by a third party i.e by Human right commissions, Human rights organisations, governments or government officials. The government of Ethiopia (country of the conflict) has denied Eritrean involvement. Eritrea has also denied involvement, the UN secretary-general of the United Nations António Guterres, and former US- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo officially denied Eritrean involvement conflict when the conflict was at its peak. So what I have asked this user is to be neutral in editing this article in relation to this conflict since the conflict is complex and it’s not possible to provide all sides of the conflict in this article. I have advised that content relating to the conflict is better suited in the article that is about the conflict which is the Tigray War article. I have also suggested to the user that such content can be described short, for instance that there have been accusations against Eritrea in the conflict in Tigray, Ethiopia and that Eritrea have denied such involvement along with credible cited sources.
    • After bringing up above issue the user went on with questioning the population estimates of Eritrea. I asked for engagement in the discussion created by this user [161], still this user made the edits prior to even beginning responding in the discussion thread [162]. I urged the user to engage in the discussion and reach consensus before making these edits, [163]. After that the user started engaging in discussion but has repeatedly added content relating to the population of Eritrea with out reaching consensus several times, while the discussion has been ongoing 1)[164],2)[165]. In the discussion page of the article I provided four sources independent of each other that indicates that the population of Eritrea is around six million. This is supported by CIA estimates for 2021, African development bank [166], COMESA-Comon Market for East and South Africa [167], and two government sources. The two government sources, one that mentions that the population was 3,5M in 2002 [168], and one that mentions that population was close to six million in 2020 [169]. The government sources are consistent with the three other sources. The user is solely relying on one source for the population which is decreasing the population of Eritrea with three million individuals, half of the population! I have argued that the UN source are possibly basing their data on older data (prob.2002) when the government of Eritrea reported a population of 3,5 million, so that would be the least credible one. For this reason the population should be based on the data that currently on the article which has been explained in the article talk section, along with the ones provided here.
    • Lastly the user wanted to add content to Eritrea’s history which is perfectly fine. The problem is that the user added redundant information that already existed in the section that brings up accusations of Human rights abuses. I kindly asked this user to add this content in this section and not add it the history section since it’s not content relevant to the “History Of Eritrea”.
    • Eritrean Defence Forces- Here the user have been adding similar content as in the Eritrea article, non verified and non neutral accusation from a party participating in the conflict/war in Tigray War/conflict. I have told the user to add this type of content in the relevant Tigray War article.
    • Demographics of Eritrea -User decided to add a huge section to this article knowing that the same issues about population of Eritrea is being discussed in Eritrea article and also that this subject is under Discretionary Sanctions which makes it even more important to reach consensus when making so big changes. Still the user again preceded doing changes to this article. See [170]
    • Asmara-In this article there was a dispute of the WHO director Tedros could be in the list of Notable person of Asmara, the capital of Eritrea. Which he can, however his names on the list has caused controversy since he is an anti-Eritrea figure supporting and a member of “Tigray People Liberation Front” the main political party in Tigray conflict. This has caused users removing his name from the list. I proposed several solutions to this issue in the talk page of the article. That discussion is ongoing. However user Boud has taken opportunity to involve the only user that objected to my proposition and asked this user to get involve in the the Eritrea article, which is against Wikipedia policy.
    • Overall the dispute can be sorted with engagement in the discussion, However this user must refrain from making edits without reaching consensus, per above explanation. The user also needs to acknowledge that these articles are under
      wikipedia:ACDS, to avoid breaching the discretionary sanctions, which this user might have done already. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Comment by Alex2006:I would like to intervene because I am also part of it. The ip removed Tedros from the list of Asmara's notable persons without giving a reason, and I, who have the article on my watchlist, restored it. The removal was clearly disruptive editing. After my restore Leechjoel9 came in and removed it again.[172] After two more reverts I opened a thread on his discussion page asking why, and he replied that that name was "controversial" for political reasons. The solution according to him was either to remove non-Eritreans from the list, or to split the list from the article.[173] Clearly doing ethnic cleansing of a list goes against at least a couple of policies, and is not a negotiable solution by consensus. Splitting the list would make sense if there were hundreds of names, but there are only eight names. After that, two other users came along and restored the name for the same reasons as me. However, each time the name was removed again by him, who proposed more and more fanciful solutions, but all with one point in common: that non-Eritreans linked to Asmara must disappear from the article because Asmara is now an Eritrean city. By the way, this is not his first attempt to remove the list: he had already tried it a few months ago. He deleted the list,[174] after my revert he opened a thread on Asmara's discussion page, writing that the list should be split (deleting a list is a rather strange way of splitting it), but after my objections he gave up.[175] At that time there were only two non-Eritreans on the list: Gianfranco Rosi, a famous director, and Remo Girone, a theatre and television actor, both born in Asmara. According to his latest statements, neither of them is worthy of inclusion in the article. At this point (and after several edit wars on this article which I won't mention) I think that you have more elements to judge: personally, I support a time limited topic ban, hoping that in the meantime he will understand on what principles Wikipedia works. Alex2006 (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alessandro57 Your entitled to your views but banning users simply because they don't agree with you is not a solution and not how Wikipedia works. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to understand this. I would prefer if you would engage in the Asmara discussion in the talk page, as you see now Tedros is still on the list as mentioned three times now so that is not an issue. But apparently that is not enough reason to remove him from the list. The others ones will certainly not cause controversy since they are not known individuals to many, however the question about a list of Eritreans from Asmara that are notable to Asmara is still legitimate question. Because there are at least 10-20 that can be included in the list, so work would be done to achieve this and this was why I started the question in the article, similar questions have been raised before yes but nothing with that discussion, it was revived again after the ip removed Tedros from the list. Leechjoel9 (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by Alex2006:I see that unfortunately you continue not to understand: in my opinion you should not be temporarily banned because I disagree with you, but because you do not understand (or if you do, you refuse to comply with) the policies and principles of this encyclopedia. I have participated in both discussions, trying to explain to you why you (as well as I and anyone else here) cannot even begin a discussion that is based on the assertion that a list of notable people has to be cleaned up on an ethnic basis. The sentence "the whole section of notable people of Asmara should include Eritreans and not non-Eritreans" [176] (BTW, Rosi and Girone are both Italians, so according to your proposal they have to be excluded) needs no further explanation about your real intentions. And what does being popular have to do with being on the list? So, according to you, if
      Fellini was born in Asmara, he should be removed immediately, because he is known all over the world, and this would make him "controversial". In this whole story, the only one who has having problems with this list, for months, is you, and the reason should be clear to everyone at this point. And with that I'm done, I hope the admins do what they have to do. Alex2006 (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    A policy which has not yet been raised here is

    WP:NOTPAPER. Leechjoel9's live edits have an average size of -92 bytes (a negative number of bytes); they remove more material than they contribute. Eritrea is a topic that has too little coverage in en.Wikipedia rather than too much. Boud (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I have engaged in discussion with you in a number of articles. You simply disagree with me in these subjects. The right place for discussions are the talk pages of those articles. Every user is different on Wikipedia, and user contributions is not about bytes, the bytes are not static and changes over time depending what’s edited and when. Regarding the coverage of Eritrea, it’s covered on the en.Wikipedia and of course could be covered more like many articles. You still have to gain consensus when users disagrees with you. Actually I’ve tried to improve the coverage on Eritrea and not the opposite. Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You entered text in the talk pages, but that wasn't engagement with the substantive content of what I wrote. Boud (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Independently of me, other users have tried to explain sourcing issues, and have been surprised at outright removal of what they felt was properly sourced material: Ssbbplayer, 13:33, 20 April 2020; OldGalileo, 21:37, 30 May 2020; Pathawi, 20:40, 2 January 2021; regarding substantive discussion, see Pathawi, 23:51, 2 January 2021. Boud (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been following the Timeline of Tigray war and Tigray war for a few weeks now and Boud has behaved as if he owns those articles. Also, many of the users who edit simultaneously with Boud seem to agree and edit the same pages. I suspect Boud is a sock puppeteer and is using these other accounts to form this false consensus. Just reading all of the other users commenting in the same style of English and editing the same articles. Moderators how do I open a Sockpuppet Inquiry on Boud?Clownshking (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Clownshking: I disagree with the claim, but here is the place to start reading: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Handling suspected sockpuppets. Boud (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you now randomly finding ways to come up with accusations? All the discussion were solved or ended within those discussions. You lacked to reach consensus on several articles and now going of topic. I couldn’t agree more with user
    WP:ACDS for Horn of Africa on user talk pages. I do agree that it is good to inform users about this, however this might discourage users from editing, especially since Boud is active editing these articles and involved in the disputes. Leechjoel9 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Leechjoel9: The past discussions may have been solved, but they may help understand the current situation, and uninvolved people will judge whether you have learnt from the past.
    I agree that I am active on the
    WP:OWNing
    .
    TLDR: To those interested in the population of Eritrea issue, I suggest this self-contained summary of the UN DESA Revision 2019 official explanation of how Eritrea seemed to drop in population by 1.8 million from 2017 to 2019 (the whole times series since 1950 was revised in 2019); the current best estimate is about 3.5 to 3.6 million. To see a lack of substantive arguments against a proposal on the same talk page, scroll up. Boud (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Boud you clearly have a AntiEritrea and ProTPLF POV. You have been overly involved in depicting the Tigray conflict with all the articles that you have edited or made up to promote the TPLF view. Nothing has been confirmed but only weaselly worded reported. You present Tplf Statements as fact but contest PM Abiy or Eritrean governments statement as not reliable. And you have been using multiple accounts to make a false sense of consensus. You also left message on my Talk page as if you are some kind of authority on Wikipedia. I stopped editing any articles at this point because of you. Are you a moderator? If not why are you contesting and discussing adnaseum about these certain articles? The population of Eritrea has multiple reliable sources stating a range in 6 million but you have gone too far with your one source cross examining the other official sources. The consensus is 6 million and not 3.5 million. And what is the point of this ANI to keep discussing your one source?Clownshking (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the record: my POV in Wikipedia editing is neither anti-Eritrea nor pro-TPLF; it is pro-Wikipedia, i.e. based on the sources and NPOV. If you seriously think I'm sockpuppeting, then you should file a request instead of repeating your claim here, which is the wrong place for that. Accusations should not be made lightly. Messages on talk pages by me do not imply any kind of authority on Wikipedia. We don't have moderators on Wikipedia; we have a community. My comment was meant to help because your edit did not match the content of the source. We
    WP:NOTPAPER as an overlapping issue; and the difficulty in substantive engagement on talk pages is a related timesink issue. Regarding sources, I recommend that you read the UN DESA Revision 2019 official explanation by demographers of why the population of Eritrea is currently best estimated as 3.5 million and why 1.8 million Eritreans "vanished" from the point of view of the improvement in historical estimates for a country that has never had a census. In fact, here I have brought attention to the Eritrean National Statistics Office 2010 estimate of 3.2 million in 2010, which matches the UN DESA Revision 2019 value of 3170.437 thousand for the year 2010. The relevance to AN/I is whether Leechjoel9 (and you?) can accept that sources are not just websites. For demographic information, demographic organisations are the best source. Boud (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    UN DESA is not the census taker of any country! There are more sources disagreeing with your Source. Stop pushing your agenda. You are being a disruptive editor pushing your narrow one source agenda. Your one source is not consensus by definition. Yes there will be Sockpuppet SPI on you. Btw I will talk with a real moderator please stop threatening new editors with your threats of getting banned. You did that to me and now some editor Biniam on FANO nationalist article. Clownshking (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment by Alex2006: Clownshking, these are ad hominem arguments that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you have problems with Boud open a separate thread in AN/I. However, consider that if he hadn't opened this thread about Leechjoel9, I would have done it within a few hours. As for myself, I don't deal with the horn of Africa except marginally (I only have Asmara on my watchlist) I've been on wikipedia for 15 years, so I have some experience and, like many experienced users, I do routinely some anti-vandalism work. In this context I've noticed in the last few months a disruptive behaviour from Leechjoel9. And that is what is being talked about here. Alex2006 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, the subjects brought up by
    WP:ACDS. Despite knowing this the user added disputed content several times before reaching consensus which the edit diffs I provided shows. One can’t impose his or her views by force in articles and on others users, you got to engage in discussion to form consensus. Alessandro57 reporting users just because you feel they disagree with you on a subject is not first step to resolve disputes over content. I fully engaged with you through the talk page of Asmara article. Ive been around long enough to tell the difference between vandalism and an ordinary content dispute. I have also done anti-vandalism work when I’ve seen vandalism being committed. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Leechjoel9: Regarding "has in my view not acted responsible, judging by all content this user has been adding to Horn of Africa articles knowing they're under WP:ACDS": discretionary sanctions are fully compatible with
    have been under discretionary sanctions since 17 March 2020, but many Wikipedians have added a huge amount of content to COVID-19 pages. The sanctions are not meant to slow down the addition of content by discussions where the meaning of sourcing is ignored and where points are not responded to properly. Even now, after you have failed to show why a highly reputable demography research organisation should be ignored, and after I did the work to solve the population-of-Eritrea puzzle by finding the UN DESA 2019 Revision Release-Note-v1, and I found and showed an official Eritrean Ministry of Local Government + National Statistics Office estimate (see Sect 1.1.4 on pdf page 31), you have not yet restored my edit. Boud (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The issue was not about wether a user can edit articles that are under sanctions, but your overall edit style and behaviour when editing these articles, despite knowing they are under sanctions I.e handing out sanction warnings to those who disagrees with you, doing changes before reaching consensus, and now not respecting that you haven’t got consensus when it comes to the population estimate and you can’t simply impose your views by force.Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So Boud continues to stalk the articles that I edited and then he falsely gives me a vandalism warning. Boud stop harassing me, you do not own those articles. Stop using other accounts. You behavior on Wikipedia is making new users like myself from editing anything. Clownshking (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPI or withrdaw the accusation of sockpuppetry. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    HandThatFeeds I will withhold from stating the accusation publicly until an SPI filing.Clownshking (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this copyright violation from https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/africa/eritrea-political-geography/tigrinya with a misleading edit summary while investigating another editor. MER-C 10:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have informed I will look into this past edit.Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    After I provided four archival time series of the Eritrean population, which fully explain the variation in estimates of all the sources, again attacked me and ignored the content of the new (in terms of Wikipedia discussion) sources, claiming that "despite all other sources provided showing opposite" I am "trying to impose this view." Leechjoel9 appears to insist on ambiguity in this edit, ignoring my additional work, and doesn't seem to have acknowledged that

    not being here to build an encyclopedia. Boud (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Outsider's passing impression

    Maybe to reemphasize the point I've just made at ACN (diff), in my experience, these free-flowing, word-limitless threads that concerns AE disputes usually soon become rather impenetrable to outside reviewers. Even just the opening post alone isn't that easy to parse. Overall, that is a lot of text and material that the outside reviewer is expected to wade through. Maybe uninvolved admins will come around who'd be willing and/or able to piece everything together here. But the likelihood that this will turn into a dead-end timesink seems pretty high right now, I'm sorry to say. El_C 13:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Boud has a content dispute with the Consensused demographic of Eritrea article regarding the 6 million figure. He wants to lower the population to 3.5 million based one source UN DESA. However the other official sources give a 6 million figure. Leechj and myself and previous editors who added the 6 millionish have had a consensus. Boud brought ANIs for both myself and Leechj separately accusing us of anything and everything. Afterwards he would continue the content dispute in both ANIs as well as the Talk page of the Demographics of Eritrea article. I don’t get why he needs to use ANIs for dispute that is already being discussed in the talk page of the article. Both ANIs have become open ended where Boud brings every perceived slight as a major violation of Wikipedia rules. This appears as misuse of ANIs to force his POV on us and the articles he disagrees with. Is this acceptable good faith editor behavior?Clownshking (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: I did my best to write the case as fairly as possible, with specific evidence, in a structured way. I don't feel that it would be fair for someone to be topic-banned without the evidence being clearly presented.
    I would appreciate closure of this case, independently of the Clownshking case. The Leechjoel9 case is highly unusual in my experience: s/he presents arguments which at the surface seem to be reasonable, but on checking properly are generally vague and not supported by the evidence. His/her text contribution in live edits to Wikipedia is on average negative (-92 bytes, see above), and the effect is to block development of Eritrea related pages on Wikipedia while refusing to discuss sources rationally and precisely, and (for example) refusing to accept that an article on demographics should be preferably, or, at least (under NPOV), include demographic sources along with non-demographic sources. Should I be the one to call for closure or make a proposal for closure? or someone uninvolved? Boud (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Diwakarjha987

    Diwakarjha987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an almost exclusively disruptive pattern of editing. They have been altered to discretionary sanctions in the topic areas of IPA and BLP, warned multiple times for a variety of reasons, including personal attacks, edit warring and removal of sourced material, as well as blocked once for their conduct. None of this has led to any changes in their behavior, in their latest edits they removed the word "allegedly" from an article on a murder, contrary to the cited reference and in the absense of any conviction. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. Something's gotta give. El_C 03:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll maybe clarify that, though this involves the IPA topic area, this is a normal admin action, not an AE one. The disruption —which is egregious, especially, BLP-wise— simply isn't nuanced enough to bother invoking
    WP:ACDS at this time. El_C 04:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @EEng, is the implication of this that the sexual organs are more important than the brain? Gotta have your priorities straight... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    the sexual organs are more important than the brain? – Apparently. We all know people who operate having the former but not the latter. EEng 05:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng, 😲 did I lobotomise someone by mistake? Oops! Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive reversions by Mr. Matté

    OP CU blocked GirthSummit (blether) 10:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This user came to my attention after reverting my addition to

    Maine State Route 395, claiming that it was a "test edit". How is that a test edit? He also claimed that there were no sources for my edit, despite them being plainly visible on MaineDOT's website. How is this an acceptable behavior? Pelham87 (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I do suggest you try to resolve the issue on your own or at dispute resolution before bringing it to ANI, though, unless you already did that. 4D4850 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    Pelham87, it is quite common in certain circumstances for a reviewer to reinstate a redirect if an article isn't ready for article space. I see that Mr. Matté left a note on your talk page commenting on the article, and explaining why he felt it wasn't ready to be published. I suggest that you engage with him and talk through the issues - you haven't provided evidence of a chronic or urgent behavioural issue that needs admin intervention. Best GirthSummit (blether) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GirthSummit why are you deleting people’s comments? Pelham87 (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pelham87 Because they were off-topic - this noticeboard deals with conduct issues, it's not the place to discuss content issues. That said, the second comment was focussed on contentconduct, so I'll leave that in place.
    Now, here's a question for you: you reinstated your edit here, without addressing the issue that Mr. Matté raised with it, which is that it does not support the changes that you made to the article (which it clearly does not). Why did you do that, rather than discussing the issue? GirthSummit (blether) 17:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the sources were easy to find, and if he wants them so badly he can add them to the article himself. Be the person to bell the cat. Pelham87 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOOMERANG before responding.) GirthSummit (blether) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:3RR, and BRD is happening here. Pelham87 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Um actually, bell the cat means to propose that someone else do a difficult and dangerous task. Narky Blert (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pelham87, the onus is on you to provide the source when someone disputes your change, not on them to go and find it for you. You don't need to breach 3RR to be blocked for edit warring, that's just the bright-line point at which you will almost certainly be blocked. The D part of BRD should come before the reinstatement. I suggest that you either find a source to support the changes you made, or self-revert. GirthSummit (blether) 18:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, honest answer is I don't know. I'm not familiar with that particular puppeteer, I can't rule anything in or out, but would obviously be happy for anyone with concrete suspicions to raise an SPI report with details for review. GirthSummit (blether) 22:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've saved anyone the paperwork, and added an ILT CU block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Zzuuzz, and a tilt of the hat towards Nil Einne. GirthSummit (blether) 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And indeed, a CU link was found:
    Contact me | Contributions). 03:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:OR
    , Copyvios, no edit summaries, etc.

    Indeffed. MER-C 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TheriusRooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    A quick glance at their talk page shows an editor who is trying to

    WP:COMMUNICATE. Going through contribs reveals numerous additions of original research (often of the trivial kind)[178], inappropriate page moves [179], and generally unhelpful edits (here's a manual revert of 9 of TheriusRooney's edits
    .

    In 10 years of editing, they have made a total of 13 edits to UserTalkspace and 8 edits to Wikipediaspace including this gem from May 2019. Furthermore, I have noticed a distinct lack of edit summaries. I think it's clear at this point that the user doesn't want to communicate, make whatever edits they want, and leave us to clean the mess. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, the Babel userboxes here imply this user may not be particularly comfortable with English. ("en-3" is a hell of a range.) Do they have any cross-project work on idwiki? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently they do indeed have 2042 edits on idwiki, but again, the same patterns arise in that 0 of those edits are in User Talk and none at quick glance have edit summaries. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem like they're
    WP:NOTLISTENING, as they're still making OR trivial edits [180], rather than communicating on this ANI. I've only come across this editor a few times, but it does seem like these sort of edits are a pattern- I came across this ANI as I was going to warn the user about unsourced, OR trivial edits, and then found there was this thread for it. Editors who don't communicate and have lots of problems tend to be a net negative to Wikipedia- we had a similar case for a football/soccer editor a few weeks back (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#User refusing to talk or collaborate), which resulted in a block until they agree to talk and collaborate with people. I think similar would be justified here. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I definitely agree with this. They are a clear net-negative to the project, in my opinion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They should have been blocked a long time ago. I have corrected that oversight. I will also refer this user to

    WP:CCI - I have seen this behavior many times before, and every time there are more copyvios. MER-C 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    Highly disruptive edit warring by Connorguy99

    Dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Connorguy99 was blocked by Izno (kindly, I might add) after they made 32 reverts of several editors at List of EastEnders characters. 32 reverts to any article is disruptive. Connor was warned, acknowledged it and is now going after any editor who dare touch the article or talk page and badgering them endlessly. They do not appear to understand that they were disruptive and insist that anyone who reports them, reverts them or otherwise doesn't go to bat for them is "disgusting and biased." Despite multiple attempts by multiple people to explain this to the editor, they just don't get it and won't leave it alone. I am proposing this be turned into a longer full block based on their continued disruptive behavior. CUPIDICAE💕 01:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I see Cullen328 blocked while I was writing this but I think it's still worth discussing as this disruption took place across several articles. I could care less about the subject matter but I think that the excessive edit warring needs to end and the editor doesn't appear to understand (or is unwilling) that this type of behavior is disruptive and damaging and ask that this be left open to discuss what further actions or sanctions may be needed once their 72 hour block is up. CUPIDICAE💕 01:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already warned them that if they carry on when they are unblocked, there will be further sanctions. I note that their talkpage contains edit-warring warnings going back to 2018, so clearly they aren't on a learning curve here. Perhaps they will take heed, perhaps not. Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite their last response to me and others leads me to believe this will not be their last block...I'm quite curious to know what bias they're accusing me of though. CUPIDICAE💕 01:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I blocked Connorguy99 for 72 hours for disruptive editing, and the editor is hereby warned that a longer block will be the result of a return to disruption and/or edit warring. If there is support for a longer block, so be it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update As hostilities continued, I removed TPA. Feel free to undo if I acted in error. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First set of blocks, so 72 hours is suitable. Perhaps, they will gain a better perspective. I think we can hope for the best and deal with what comes when it comes. They really need to read the
    WP:GAB. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks

    The editor

    serious personal attacks
    against me:

    This "editor" has previously been alerted by other users, such as Ashleyyoursmile, Moxy and Lennart97, but he preferred to become more and more aggressive instead of following the rules of the project. Chronus (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A few of us have tried to communicate with this editor to no avail. Realizing today that perhaps they don't speak English. That said I would normally try to explain the problem edits to a new editor ... but seeing the translation of the only replies we've gotten from this person....they are clearly not the type of editor we need here.Moxy- 02:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Prunexor for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They do speak English, for the record; just see the latest section at Talk:Brazil. They've made it abundantly clear there that they are unable to edit collaboratively; any editor who disagrees with their political POV is labelled a "radical Marxist socialist". While still behaving semi-civilly at that talk page, it seems they didn't feel the need to hold back when writing in Portuguese. This well-deserved block will probably be seen as proof that Wikipedia is a grand socialist conspiracy... Lennart97 (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense of course, it's an open secret that WP is controlled by the Illuminati. Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Phantom Hoover blanket reverts all helpful edits, most of which were encyclopedic, and attempts to gaslight.

    I recently revamped the page List of space flight simulation games to meet our guidelines better. I removed redlinks, I removed primary sources, obvious promotions, spam, and content that had been long tagged as unsourced. I also linked to other notable articles, condensed the article to flow better and added subsections, and also did numerous typographical and syntax corrections (such as adding italics to titles, for consistencies sake. I removed duplicates and also updated the article due to many cancelled games not being indicated as such, and also updating games from years ago that were in the works, and were cancelled, or released. Here is my first edit: [181] and here is my last: [182].

    User:Phantom Hoover did a blanket revert of all of my edits and then used gaslighting in their summary "Re-add enormous section of the article, listing space combat games, which was apparently deleted accidentally.") Clearly they could have rede my edit summary and seen my motives, instead they decided to issue a disruptive blanket reversion that added all of that back, and they did not attempt to improve the article after that. Not only that, but there were numerous helpful edits by @Jnnnnn: ([183]) and @Sundhaug92: ([184]) that were reverted and disregarded by the user. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Diff/997960415 may be the issue. A vandal blanked a section and it was never noticed. Numerous edits were made and then the revert of the vandal happened. A little editing and everyone's work can be restored. Phantom Hoover should have been more careful but maybe not an intentional gaslighting 17:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Chalk it up to a mixup, I guess...? El_C 21:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be really careful about misusing the colloquial-but-meaningful verb "to gaslight". This isn't what it means. No person B appears to have been trying to make any person A believe that person A is too mentally ill to be able to trust person A's own perceptions of reality. Person B was possibly doing their best just to
    WP:AGF: "this might not have been what someone meant to do". If there is an ongoing history of bad relations between person A and person B, then that's a whole 'nother story, but I'm not aware of any such history here. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Disruptive editing by User:Agenthercules14

    Temporary block. Drmies (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Agenthercules14 continues to make similar edits across multiple articles despite being reverted by multiple editors. I should point out that their edits are not really vandalism, however, they continue to restore their edits, despite explanations given for why they are being reverted. On top of that, they are not using the edit summary and are not responding on their talk page to explain their edits.

    I have tried reaching out to this editor on their talk page, but they have clearly ignored it. They have also ignored the edit summaries explaining why they were being reverted. I warned them that they would be reported if they continued to make their edits without any explanation. They ignored this and continued to make the same edits, still without explanation.

    Based on their editing history, this is a newer editor, or at the very least, a new account, as it is only about two months old. However, I feel it should be noted that they have previously been reported for similar disruptive editing.

    Example of recent actions at article, WWE New Year's Revolution:

    • I made this edit to clean up the article some and bring it closer to MOS standards.
    • Agenthercules14 made this edit without an edit summary, reverting what I had done to the infobox, despite my explanation in my previous edit summary.
    • I reverted him, again explaining the issue.
    • Agenthercules14 reverted, again with no explanation.
    • I reverted, asking them to please stop ignoring the edit summaries.
    • Agenthercules14 continued to ignore the edit summary and reverted again.
    • Another editor reverted them.
    • Agenthercules14, still not explaining himself, reverted again.
    • The other editor reverted them again.
    • Agenthercules14 reverted, again no edit summary.
    • I reverted them, explaining that I warned them about their continued reverts.
    • Agenthercules14 ignored that and reverted again.
    • I reverted and am now here making this report.

    Similar actions have been done by Agenthercules14 on similar pages where myself and the other editor mentioned have continuously had to revert Agenthercules14. --JDC808 ♫ 09:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Boyonahill – COI editor unwilling to abide by Wiki policies

    Hi. On 3 March, Boyonahill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s unsourced additions were reverted by multiple editors at Alex Glasgow: [185], [186], [187].

    After the second revert, they posted to @

    NoahDavid771:'s Talk page: [188], indicating they had been editing the article for a while and claiming to be son of the article's subject. I assume they have previously edited as GlasgowDan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I posted to their Talk page
    explaining why they'd been reverted. They did not respond.

    Instead, they continued with their unsourced additions which I reverted: [189], [190]. One of their edit summaries included multiple violations of

    WP:NPA
    : "distruptive editing and vindictive and not in the line of being welcoming to new members....what is this to you? it means nothing you pedant. go and do something useful you are petty minded".

    I again posted to their Talk page with explanations and suggestions how to handle their COI. They replied on my Talk page with further abuse and stated their intent to start socking if they were to be blocked: [191]. At this point, I think a block is in order. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Boyonahill, you have to stop. I understand that for you the memory of your father overrides your knowledge of what Wikipedia is and how it works, but you have to stop. Please consider this a final warning for inserting unverified content, for edit warring over that content, for personal attacks. You must understand that the Wikipedia editors you are fighting with want the article to be as good and fair as possible, but within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. And you have to operate within those as well. So please, no more of this. Why don't you go figure out what kind of sourcing you can bring to the article, and discuss it with the editors on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Your empathetic message to Boyonahill is commendable and I really hope it helps them to understand. Unfortunately, they have been making further unsourced additions since you wrote here. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Efe Alt

    Efe Alt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
    )

    They have now created

    Fram (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul

    KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul is obviously looking to create pages for themselves as seen on their talk page. No diffs are really needed right now. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes you think they want to create pages, they seem to want the opposite, to remove an article about themselves. It has been PRODded. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For sake of writing this here, the user has the same writing style and behavior as MommaBaker60, who also claims to be Kokumo. - GoatLordServant(Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) To expand on that they want an article if they are the only one that can edit it(which we don't do). They don't want "privileged white men" editing about them. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    She's very quick to call everything we say harassment, racist, misogyny, transphobic, and so forth. Sadly, it's still evident that they haven't read any of the policies we have presented. - GoatLordServant(Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GoatLordServant, exactly! The first message on my talk page is evidence. SoyokoAnis - talk 16:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the place for this observation, but there's something odd about the article at the moment. It looks like it's conflating two people into one subject - from a quick poke around the Scottish Poetry Library website and a couple of publishers' sites, I don't think that the Scottish poet Fadeke Kokumo Rocks, who was born in Cowdenbeath, is the same as the writer from Chicago that most of the article's about. GirthSummit (blether) 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the comments on
    own an article about themselves. Everything I've seen has been by Wikipedia policy from people, and it's not okay to call people racist misogynists when they disagree with you, and when you don't understand how Wikipedia works properly. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Joseph2302, is a permenate block okay? It's also sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoyokoAnis (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call it sockpuppetry per se. The user announced that the new account was replacing the original account. (Their intent was improper, but there's nothing socky about the behavior.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bkarcher with a COI removed POV tag without discussion

    User:Bkarcher with a COI has removed tags of multiple issues about COI and POV from UBF [192]. It had the tags and was still in disputes. But he removed the tags without any discussions and consensus. It is a violation of Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags. And also he disrupted the talk page removing old talks about the disputes, here [193] and moving some talks into my talk page without any discussions and consensus, here [194]. He added a section to the talk page after I pointed out the violation, here [195]. I don't want to have edit wars so asked him to put it back and discuss to have consensus but he refused it. Dlee612 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just stumbled across this by good chance. DLee612 is one of an endless stream of SPAs with obvious COI editing at University_Bible_Fellowship and its talkpage. I was one of a small number of people who keep an eye on the page and revert the tedious whitewashing, but I've been too busy recently to keep up with it. Bkarcher's editing has always been fine. The page would certainly benefit from more eyes. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, it is very interesting. I only informed to User:Bkarcher talk page but you just stumbled across this by good chance less than a day? What a coincidence! You are claiming that "DLee612 is one of an endless stream of SPAs". What are your bases to say I am one of SPAs? How come you speak conclusively? As I already talked to you in the article's talk page, I am here to contribute to the Wikipedia with my professional knowledge and experience. I am doing my best on my free time. University Bible Fellowship is one of them and I declared my COI. You are saying his editing has always been fine. Let me ask you
    • Is it fine for him with a COI to remove NPOV dispute tags without any discussions and consensus?
    • Is it fine for him with a COI to remove old talks without any discussions and consensus?
    • Is it fine for him with a COI to move talks from the article's talk page to my talk page without asking and any consensus?

    Are you showing support for such violation? Do you think his dogmatic behaviour is fine? We have a very simple solution which is just revert them and discuss to have consensus. In order to avoid editing war, I asked him several times to put it back but he refused and ignored. This editing behaviour is not fine. Dlee612 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Impersonation/ potential sock

    Hi All,

    WP:SOAPBOX on the talk pages of Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe, LGBT rights in Europe‎, among others. I have left two warnings on their new talk page, but I believe this user is not here to genuinely build this encyclopedia. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    block evasion. El_C 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    logged action. El_C 21:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Very much appreciated! Archives908 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Clownshking

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

    Boud (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You have been stalking me on Wikipedia and giving warnings without good faith. I am not a vandal since I don’t edit much. You have been acting like a moderator not only on me but other users. Also setting this ANI like you did with that other user Leech only shows you are not editing in good faith.Clownshking (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Clownshking: Any editor may give a good-faith warning to other editors about inappropriate conduct; it doesn't just have to be administrators doing that. I also don't see evidence that Boud is acting in bad faith. I would encourage you to explain how your edits are good-faith improvements to the named articles. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems bad faith editing to portray an entire ethnic group as bad. I disagree with that and Boud has pretty much stifled my ability to edit without a threat of warnings every time there is a disagreement. Look he disagreed with two editors and jumps into using warnings and taking us to Wikipedia court. That is bad faith behavior. He needs to explain why editing these articles especially about an ethnic group with the POV of bad group. I was correcting that because broad brush attacks on an ethnic group is wrong. He also did not reach consensus then he uses ANI against two of us. Clownshking (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Clownshking: Again, I ask how your edits are good-faith improvements to the named articles. Further, you have made some serious allegations against Boud. Do you withdraw the allegations and accusations of racism against them? —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My edits were good faith because they brought balance to these articles where they were portraying the Amhara ethnicity as bad. That is not fair. Also NPOV would mean to show the TPLF as the agent of the conflicts. When Boud can agree and show fairness in his edits about Non-Tigrayans ie Amhara then I will not call him a racist. Are you neutral in this? Also why did you refer to Boud as them? Is he not just one user?Clownshking (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Clownshking: Hrm. Are we to interpret that as you're just calling them racist as leverage over them? (And please note that I use singular they when the gender of an individual is unclear.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I called Boud racist because of POV editing which paints Amhara people as bad. I would call a white supremacist racist if they continued to vilify Black people and Jewish people. The content of his edits paints Amhara people as bad. If he stops that then he won’t be a racist. Otherwise I am free to point out when someone is showing racial bias which I strongly feel from Bouds edits especially about Amhara people. But he can continue to edit how he feels then that won’t change how he appears to me and any other editor who will notice that bias.Clownshking (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Clownshking: Please focus on the content and not on the contributors. A quick read of your edits shows that any bias introduced was done by you, not Boud; your edits painted Fano as better than the sources indicated. Accordingly, I see no indication that Boud is acting in bad faith or with bias or malice—so continuing to accuse the editor of racism would be deemed as a bad-faith action and personal attack by any person who made such accusation.
    If you would like to provide sources to counter, for instance, the Guardian story in the
    Talk:Fano (nationalist movement). You need to work to build consensus for the changes you seek. —C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Just to add my five cents, I think it's awfully telling that Clownshking's first edit consists of them possibly calling another user an ethnic slur and that most of their edits is just basically them of accusing other people of being sockpuppets, "TPLF apologists", "paid to spread disinformation" etc.The Peoples Front of Judea (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clownshking: Several recent edits by you on Mai Kadra massacre have helped preserve NPOV and proper matching with sources there. Thanks! However, this entry in the RfC ignores the content of the RfC and focuses on me. (The comment effectively states that I am the UN DESA Population Division. I appreciate the compliment, but I cannot take credit for UN DESA publications.) Boud (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Boud actually no, the discussion is there and not here. And the statement Boud’s estimate is exactly that since you are the one pushing that estimate in Wikipedia. All the sources disagree with your claim. But you can continue to discuss there instead of here unless this ANI is just being used to try to paint me as a bad faith editor? Are you assuming I did not respond to your RfC in good faith?Clownshking (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You were asked by C.Fred to focus on content, not the user. I'm giving evidence. I'm not aiming at any particular result; I didn't propose what action, if any, should be taken. I can see that on some pages such as Isaias Afwerki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), you seem to be accepting to edit together with other editors and you've started showing understanding of sourcing. However, here there is a misunderstanding of the need for an RfC to be properly threaded so that others can follow the conversation; here there is a focus on my apparent ethnic identity as a Tigrayan (I'm quite honoured, I admit), which doesn't help focus on the point (the widespread and systematic torture of Eritreans is on-topic, because it affects emigration, mortality and the demographics of Eritrea); and this edit says that the United Nations DESA Population Division is an "obscure POV not based on consensused facts", which does not look to me like participating seriously in the discussion. I gave a link to the article for UN DESA, and it's difficult to see how someone can read that article and then say that UN DESA is "obscure". Even if I had not given the link, elementary respect for the arguments of others means seriously considering the possibility that others are correct; it would not have been difficult to find the UN DESA article before dismissing it as "obscure". I have put in considerable effort in looking at the sources provided by Leechjoel9 (none of which are demographic sources). Boud (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the reason I asked your background is to understand your POV. The comment you made using words that are circulated in Tigrayan circles whom some masquerade as Eritrean asylum seekers was made by you? Apparently you have created this ANI on myself and Leechj all because neither of us agree with your single source obscure data. Again you can continue content dispute there instead of bringing that here. Using the ANI to force me to accept your POV is unacceptable because if that is the case and Wikipedia allows this then I won’t edit anymore. In good faith why did you mention accusations of torture tactics in a discussion about population number? Seemed completely off topic and distracting to the topic. Look this is getting useless stalking my edits and trying to control my POV. Again I won’t discuss demographics or any article here.Clownshking (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You stated my apparent background, you didn't ask about it: why is a Tigrayan like yourself. Widespread and systematic torture affects the probability of people fleeing from a country, which affects the demographics of that country. Stalking: you happen to edit pages that I have been editing for quite some time.
    WP:AGF means making a reasonable effort to read what the others say and to read, or at least browse, the references that they provide, especially if you want to claim that the reference is "obscure". Boud (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well you have track record of using the ANI to settle content disputes. Apparently you used the nuclear option instead dialogue. Why attack me or Leechj simply because we disagree with you. Yes I did ask questions. And you editing longer doesn’t mean you solely control the content of the data. You disputed the other sources but you get upset because your source is not accepted therefore you send us to ANI. If you want to own all articles of the HOA maybe you should request Wikipedia to give you ownership until then I have a right to disagree. The stalking part is your following me on Wikipedia and crying to the moderators to do something about me. Seems you are trying to convince the admins to ban me?Clownshking (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're doing a very good job of that on your own. Please stop
    WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, and wait for admins to weigh in. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Just for the record I have not started an ANI for any reason. Boud has started ANIs for simple consensus disputes. If the goal here is to get myself or Leechj banned then what’s the point of an ANI if Boud can simply have someone like yourself already taking his side on this manufactured issue. Disagreement on topics should not be used as a proof of bad editing.Clownshking (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add my own experience, concerning the Mai Kadre massacre, he kept undoing edits to bring the article back to the version of the article made by user BiniamAmbachew (who was blocked for his edits). Which wasn't sourced at all and gave a pro-Amharan pov. Changing the deaths to 1,200 and made the sole victims Amhara or Amhara/some other group not Tigrayan, and going against what sources say. Also removed Amhara Region Special Force as a perpetrator even though that was also sourced.[196]
    Finally concerning the Fanno article, he also undid edits back to edits made by BiniamAmbachew describing the Fano as "honorable soldiers and millita members that protect and defend Ethiopia. Fano soldiers work to stablize and prevent any foriegn army from invading ethiopia." When none of the sources said that and he didn't give any sources to back it up. As well as attributing massacre by the Fano to the Samri. Not saying the Samri are good and all, but the sources said they were committed by the Fano.[197] Wowzers122 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:STALK behavior by User:Nableezy

    Feedback provided, complaint withdrawn. starship.paint (exalt) 03:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Following a disagreement at

    Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy, User:Nableezy immediately reverted or partially undid my edits at two other unrelated pages.[198][199]
    .

    The user denied it when I raised the issue with them, so clearly they won't fess up. It is obvious what happened here: Nableezy returned to their computer, saw I pinged them in a talk page discussion, responded there, and then their very next two edits were to revert my following two edits at two other pages. Whether or not these pages may or may not have been on their watchlist is irrelevant; this user made no other edits in the interim and immediately set out to undo my edits at multiple pages. Edit histories at both pages show Nableezy has not edited either page in weeks or months. Maybe I'm underestimating the odds that Nableezy just happened to follow the same links I did, in the same sequence and the same exact time frame, but I generally don't believe in coincidences or purchase lottery tickets.

    There are a lot of issues that I could bring up over the past two weeks from my interactions with this editor, but I will limit it to asking that this editor be reminded to refrain the urge to WP:STALK my edits at multiple pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, my first edit to Israeli settlement was in 2009. Im apparently the 12th most active editor on that article. My first edit to Israeli checkpoint was in 2018. I saw too bad edits back to back in my watchlist. I reverted them. Thats how watchlists work. I dont exactly understand how my editing articles that Ive been active on for years and years and years can be "stalking". Those two edits were back to back in my watchlist, and I dealt with them in that order. Maybe dont make a series of crappy edits in a row? nableezy - 00:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Wikieditor19920, just because you say it is "irrelevant" does not make it so. Nableezy has made edits to those two pages before you even joined Wikipedia, so they don't need to follow your contributions to pages they've never been. And there is no IBAN to compel them not to challenge your edits, including through reversions. El_C 00:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I very much did not see a ping from Wikieditor. Ive actually muted that editor as they dont seem to understand that when I am active on a talk page I have it in my watchlist and dont need to be pinged every time they feel the urge to respond to me. Maybe it just is he doesnt get what a watchlist is? nableezy - 00:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WIKIHOUND, which states: Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wikieditor19920, it's 2 edits. I, for one, am just not seeing how that can possibly count as HOUNDING. El_C 00:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HOUNDING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No, Wikieditor19920, it is not HOUNDING. Other disputes do not immunize yourself (or vice versa, Nableezy, from pages that are on your watchlist) against Nableezy still being entitled to disagree with your significant changes to the lead sections of both of these key ARBPIA articles. Articles which, again, they've been editing for years (as mentioned, before you even joined Wikipedia). El_C 00:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as
    WP:WIKIHOUND, it is irrelevant whether my changes were significant or not or how long I've been editing Wikipedia. The only reason that would hold any water is if I were going around intentionally vandalizing pages, which I certainly am not. And throwing around seniority is not a defense for bullying behavior either. Editors should strive to avoid even the appearance of hounding, and the diffs I cited clearly show intentional hounding. The fact that it stemmed from a disagreement is an indication of why this user is monitoring my edits, and which is not a justifiable reason to do so. It's not an "immunization" for me from being reverted. I appreciate, at the very least, that you said "vice-versa." I certainly do not intend to follow Nableezy to every page they edit, and if I did I expect similar concerns would be raised. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:ASPERSION. El_C 00:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:BOOMERANG block for disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wikieditor19920, I agree with El_C and Beyond My Ken. I do not know what your watchlist looks like, but mine is enormous and includes every article I have ever edited since 2009. I scan the recent entries several (or many) times a day, and when I see something even slightly fishy, I check it out. You are advancing a losing argument and you should drop it and move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor, you included me in a stalking comment here. I am quite active in IP area and also have a lot of articles on my watch list whereas you edit occasionally in the area, returning in December last after an absence to the
    Israel and the apartheid analogy. Your style is rather forceful, edits made are almost always likely to give rise to reversion/discussion and I could just as well have made the edits made by Nableezy myself. If you want to continue editing in the IP area then you should expect a robust response to controversial edits across a range of articles.Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Withdrawing The consensus here is that I've misunderstood Nableezy's intent and overreacted. I'll accept that, apologize, and express a willingness to move forward w/ Nableezy wherever our paths cross in the future (currently seems to be the case at a few more articles, hopefully the end result is a net improvement to all). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:193.143.239.108

    Closing with the hope that this thread and the one below it get archived at the same time, for the extra funny. El_C 15:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS — some related extra-extra funny: User_talk:El_C#OK,_I'm_impressed and User_talk:Black_Kite#Six_hours_x2! El_C 16:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    193.143.239.108 (talk · contribs) is tauntingly wanting to be blocked [200], and has seemingly called people coming to their user talk page "stupid" [201]. This user has blanked material [202][203], and vandalized articles [204][205]; all on 2021 March 4 -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Their wish is my marching orders, or something. El_C 00:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Their every desire is your whim? Narky Blert (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, it seems to be some sort of a weird pattern — see thread directly below! El_C 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bullying by Vaselineeeeeeee

    BOOMARANGAROONY
    (
    Contact me | Contributions). 03:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    This user is bullying other people like in this edit. Block please! I am who i wanna be (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Morales Garcia, who has a long history of edit warring over these topics. This user should probably be added to the sockpuppet list! Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Boomarangaroony. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Block please! Don't mind if I do! El_C 01:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Long-term ownership of an article by User:McKhan

    I am having an extraordinary amount of difficulty with User:McKhan at Al-Ahbash and the article's talk page. This is a long-standing issue, beginning with his edits to the article in 2005, and the user is extremely resistant to any edits that may portray the Al-Ahbash in a light more favorable than he deems acceptable. He does not assume good faith, constantly casts aspersions, and assumes ownership of the page. He also does not demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia content policies despite being an editor since 2005. He has previously used a sockpuppet (User:AmandaParker) to exert control over the article over a 6-year time span. The locus of our dispute was primarily a statement that, in my perspective, contradicted an assertion made in a journal article with a number of primary sources and other sources that providing only circumstantial evidence against the fact asserted by the journal article.

    For context, here are some previous comments in other discussions on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding McKhan and the Al-Ahbash page.

    From a 2012 conversation regarding the article:

    There are a serious issue with two of the people who edit this article, one at least is a spa. Since at least 28 September 2008‎ user:AmandaParker has done nothing but revert any additions to the article, and that appears to be her only contribution to Wikipedia. The other user:McKhan appears no better, all he does on this article is revert. It is simply impossible to advance the article past a stub due to these two users ownership of it. I am proposing a topic ban on both users from the article so it can actually be improved upon. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

    This is a content issue that likely belongs at

    WP:OWN. With some exceptions, nobody should have to ask permission before editing an article. --Ron Ritzman (talk
    ) 18:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

    From another 2012 conversation:

    single purpose account who for years used sockpuppets and IP's to edit war on articles relating to the Al-Ahbash group. Since 3 May 2007 he used socks and IP's to edit war to his preferred version on Abdullah al-Harari. Since 25 August 2005‎ he did the same on the Al-Ahbash article. He is violently opposed to them as can be seen with this comment he made after being blocked for one week for sockpuppetry[206] He is back from his block and is flooding the Al-Ahbash talk page with wallsotext[207], his attitude towards this group are venomous to say the least. I am quite sure the term "Habashies" is derogatory. This editor needs to be topic banned from any article dealing with Al-Ahbash given his attitude towards them. Darkness Shines (talk
    ) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

    From a 2013 conversation:

    i think its time

    ahbash article..before i appeared on the page it was a stub containing 3 lines due to his constant edit warring with other users..he removed RS material by using socks and ip's and only recently got caught because i put the article under spotlight..this has gone on for too long..i inserted a material today that was well referenced and he reverted it claiming that it is outdated…he then went to the talk page and included unreliable sources to back his claims..he is also a spa and only reverts edits from this article. its quite obvious he has deep hatred for the group which is evident by looking at the talk page archives Baboon43 (talk
    ) 06:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

    Despite McKhan's rather obvious contempt for the group, he accuses anyone else that may disagree with him of an agenda, constantly casts aspersions, fails to assume good faith, and often fails to engage in the substance of the policy-based arguments being made for or against content within the article. All of these comments are relatively recent or within the last few days.

    McKhan's tone changed after he realized that not all the content I was adding to the article portrayed the Al-Ahbash favorably (in particular, edits I made to the article on March 2 2021). Given his focus on personalizing the discussion in the first place, however, there was only limited progress on the substance of the policy-based arguments. He then considered it his place to decide when the discussion should conclude:

    He then blows up here stating that I believe that he and the clerics are idiots, that I am "bullying" him, and implies that I am denigrating scholars by calling them clerics.

    Finally, despite our ongoing discussion, he refuses to allow any sort of template on the article noting the dispute because he has decided that we've already "discussed enough":

    Because I restored the NPOV tag, he also decides that I am owning the page and issues a warning on my talk page. Snuish2 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    --

    It is important to note that the topic of Al-Ahbash is very contentious and controversial and the pages, Al-Ahbash and Abdullah_al-Harari, have been a target of sock-puppeteering, POV pushing by various IDs and rotating IPs for years.
    Why the
    Al-Azhar
    , Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah, mainstream Sunni Muslims or academic integrity. It is basically all about marketing.
    They keep coming back to the the Al-Ahbash related pages on Wikipedia because these are the pages which shows up on most of the search results on Google, Yahoo and other major search engines. Thus, it is very important for the Al-Ahbash to keep all good, positive and sanitized information being posted about themselves and their scholar Abdullah_al-Harari on Wikipedia in order to make sure that they are able to keep their current adherents as well as recruit potential adherents.
    That's where having the "affiliation" with
    Al-Azhar
    or Jamat Ahal Wa Sunnah or the mainstream Sunni Muslims.
    Don't believe me? Please, read this excerpt from Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context:
    At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP’s unofficial e-forums (www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion.
    Notes
    • [1]. Olivier Roy, L’Islam mondialisé (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2002), 127.
    • [2]. Michael Gilsenan, Saint and Sufi in Modern Egypt: an Essay in the Sociology of Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).
    Source: Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context
    What I described above is just the tip of the iceberg.
    For the past many years, their target has been the following sentence
    "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar." Their main focus being ""The AICP run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar." as this is the statement printed in
    Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash
    .
    The common sense and logic dictates that if one entity has got any sort of relationship with the other entity then the former entity will not issue any negative statement (i.e. Fatwas, kick out one's adherents out of their compound / campus .etc) against the latter entity. Hence the following questions:
    Following is a list of some of the previous editors who have edited Al-Ahbash
    With reference to this, this and this, I have no doubt on my mind that the individual with rotating IPs is Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as this ID came straight to that very sentence, tagged it and removed the sources arbitrarily.
    Sample diffs - Snuish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Starting February 28, 2021
    • 15:37, March 4, 2021 diff − Al-Ahbash moved content to "political positions." Added NPOV tag to section of remaining concern -- see talk page for details.
    • 22:37, March 3, 2021 diff -‎ Al-Ahbash "heretical" seems to occur less often.
    • 21:14, March 3, 2021 diff -‎ Al-Ahbash ‎moved "North America" section to religious beliefs since it has not been described as controversial. Inserted direct quote from "From madness to eternity" instead of relying on description.
    • 09:31, March 2, 2021 diff − Al-Ahbash ‎This sentence is not at all supported by the source, which states: "The complex structure of Shaykh Habashi's belief system blends elements of Sunni and Shii theology with Sufi spiritualism"
    • 21:59, February 28, 2021 diff - Al-Ahbash ‎{{original research|section}} "claim denied by Al-Azhar" and Germany section seem to be original research, if not other claims.
    • 12:13, February 28, 2021 diff -
      WP:RS
      criteria.
    • 11:50, February 28, 2021 diff - Al-Ahbash [original research?]
    Rotating IPs
    Following are the reasons:
    • First, the person behind rotating IPs showed up as soon as the RfC closed after years of discussions and sock-puppeteering. See @EdJohnston:'s response.
    • Then the person behind rotating IPs moved the sentence from lead to Controversy.
    • Now the person behind rotating IPs back with an ID (After waiting for 4 months.) to get the second part of the sentence, "...a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar." removed and simply keep ""The AICP run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar." as this is the statement printed in
      Al-Azhar and Al-Ahbash
      .
    With reference to an extensive discussions on the Talk Page of Al-Ahbash, first with the person behind rotating IPs and then with Snuish2, just like in the past, I have been fully involved in the discussions despite having an RfC about the existing sources. As we reached to a compromise (At least, that's what I thought.) from
    "The AICP claims to run its Islamic schools in affiliation with Al-Azhar, a claim which has been denied by Al-Azhar."
    to
    "According to Kabha and Erlich, the AICP runs a network of Islamic schools in affiliation with
    Al-Azhar
    , although scholars from the latter institution have described the Al-Ahbash movement as unorthodox, and members of the movement have not been permitted to promote their beliefs on the campus of Al-Azhar under the Egyptian penal code."
    WP:RS
    Yawar, Athar Ahmed (2020). From Madness to Eternity: Psychiatry and Sufi Healing in the Postmodern World. London, United Kingdom: UCL (University College London). p. 166. Retrieved March 2, 2021. (Refers to the fatwās against the Ahbash from a range of scholars, including Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt (fatwā dated 1999), and Ahmad Umar Hashim, the president of Al-Azhar University (2001).)
    by hook or crook, and absolutely insists on only having
    "The AICP runs a network of Islamic schools in affiliation with
    Al-Azhar
    , although scholars from the latter institution have described the Al-Ahbash movement as unorthodox, and members of the movement have not been permitted to promote their beliefs on the campus of Al-Azhar under the Egyptian penal code."
    And he has all sort of explanations and interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines to throw in for that, which is really absurd and reminds me of the very same behavior which I have faced for years by various sock-puppets, IDs and rotating IPs.
    I will let @Softlavender:, @MezzoMezzo:, @Cunard: and @EdJohnston: chime in and let the admins see through this. Thank you.  McKhan  (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ironic that McKhan has frequently leveled accusations of "canvassing," and yet here on this page he's pinged four other editors. That strikes me as very similar to his accusations of anyone that disagrees with him as being agenda-driven. With regards to the user accounts he's listed above, a cursory review would reveal that my editing and writing styles are significantly different than all of them and that User:Samsparky is still in good standing. With regard to the IP's, none of which were the subjects of any adverse administrative actions, McKhan's discussion on Talk:Al-Ahbash seemed to rest on the assumption that he is entitled to know my IP address or that it is not permissible for an unregistered user to register an account. As a result of his persistent accusations on the article's talk page, I suggested multiple times that he take his accusations to the appropriate venue. Snuish2 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ECP I've applied to the page will still work to restrict you, at least for now. El_C 15:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @El C: McKhan chose those editors based on their opinions of his edits. That would be canvassing. The crux of the issue is not only users who have advocated on behalf of the Al-Ahbash, but on a single user who has dominated the article, persistently allowing edits unfavorable to the subject without much scrutiny while quickly reverting any edits that do not align with his point of view. Your resolution misses the mark. I have no relationship with the Al-Ahbash and, in fact, have done no favors to them as a result of my edits, which is obvious if you look at the introduction of the article. Your characterization of my edits as "advocacy" is patently incorrect. Snuish2 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Snuish2, you're free to argue that, but as an uninvolved admin, that doesn't align with what I'm seeing. Perhaps another uninvolved admin will see it different...? I think that's unlikely to happen, but who knows. In any case, I stand by my action. El_C 15:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C, I certainly don't want to beat this to death, but I invite you to compare the introduction of the article before I arrived and in its current state if you have already not done so. That is not what advocacy looks like. I do not expect other admins to review this lengthy AN/I post and don't see any avenues for appeal, so I'm pretty sure you're the end of the line here. Snuish2 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Snuish2, yes, that may well be so. But whitewashing is also advocacy. It doesn't need to be about adding content that reflects positively on the subject, because removing or softening content that is critical of it is basically the same thing. El_C 16:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Point granted, I completely agree that could be construed as advocacy. Though I don't concede that there is any "whitewash" occurring here—the statement that McKhan was controverting is unequivocally stated as a fact in a journal article and was made to appear false with primary sources or sources that didn't actually contradict the journal article—but I am willing to return to this discussion after I reach the necessary number of edits. Snuish2 (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. McKhan, looks like I've applied extended confirmed protection to this page once before back in 2017. Clearly, the incessant advocacy isn't going away any time soon, so hopefully, that will take care of the crux of the problem. El_C 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C:, I am glad that you were able to see through this. Thank you.  McKhan  (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 El C, I'm glad you were willing to read through the above - that's a multi-pitch wall of text right there. GirthSummit (blether) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Deceased user

    Stewsrds informed and will handle it from here. Thank you to Possibly for taking the time and effort to see this user is given final respects EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I believe I have come across the recent obituary of a fairly prolific editor. Would someone with email turned on be willing to give a second opinion, just to be sure? --- Possibly (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly, I'll be at my laptop for the next little bit, so go for it. Daniel (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    sent, thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    well, we both agreed that the obituary matches the user. If anyone knows what to do with that info, ping me. --- Possibly (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this happen to be an editor who hasn't been around the 'pedia for a month? GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent for last ten weeks or so. I think I will just post his username to the in memoriam page. RIP.--- Possibly (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RIP. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @EvergreenFir: thanks, I just read that. Now I'm not sure what is appropriate.--- Possibly (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz and Johnuniq:, you appear to be active atm. Any suggestions? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:RIP and ask them, possibly at WT:Deceased Wikipedians (WP:RIP says to ask there). FYI, editing your comment like this does not ping the target (me). You have to add a new comment with a new signature. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Johnuniq: No ping even if I delete my existing sig and re-add the ~~~~? That's what I did here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: That diff did not generate a ping. That is because it looked like an edit as far as the software is concerned. Some editors tweak their comments several times and the software tries to avoid re-pinging people just because a comment was edited. The new signature simply looks like an edit of the old signature and does not count. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, WP:OUTING is clearly intended to be read in the context of the living rather than the dead, but if an editor has not abrogated their right to privacy in life, then here absolutely no reason for us to do so in death. And if a reliable source does so after death, that puts the onus of doing so onto the source rather than onto us. So, as with much else here, if a RS hasn't made the link, neither do we.
      Although why we would want to add anything to that page other than a deletion tag is perhaps less fathomable...  :) ——Serial 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      AFAIK, we've generally allowed people to be tagged as deceased based on confirmation of family and friends who've contacted us. This includes friendships developed from Wikipedia but which have continued off-site. And I'm fairly sure some people have been linked to obituaries even though the person has never commented on their name, when these have been provided by family or maybe friends who've agreed for them to be linked here. (When it comes to friends, I think it's generally the case that they contact family and ask them rather than just deciding for themselves. These aren't simply contacts out of the blue of course, as normally either the friend is in contact with the family because they've found out their friend is deceased, or sometimes family comes into contact with the friend because they're trying to contact the person and the family now have control over their phone, email etc. There are exceptions of course e.g. where someone is estranged or at least distant from all family and it's friends who are handling their affairs.) If the person did not give clear instructions on how such matters should be handled, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let those who knew them decide, after all that's how a lot of other stuff is handled albeit with various laws and courts able to help when there are disputes. But if it's simply a case where someone has found the obituary of someone else they're sure is a Wikipedian, that does seem more problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly If you're confident, you may want to let stewards know so they can lock the account. CUPIDICAE💕 17:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone at the admin or higher level wants the account name, email me. Otherwise I think the discussion here shows it is best left alone. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A steward emailed me and I gave them the info, so this can be closed now. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by 88.230.170.179 and 88.230.175.118

    The IPs repeatedly make edits to

    Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)
    without making any effort to resolve content dispute:

    Old IP: [208] [209] [210] [211] [212]

    New IP: [213] [214] [215] [216]

    A source was added but the user continues making the same edit after being warned on both IPs and is unwilling to discuss the changes. Soapwort (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned 88.230.170.179 (talk · contribs) who has recently been edit warring. 88.230.175.118 (talk · contribs) last edited on 21 February 2021 and can be ignored for the moment. Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PA

    this edit summary [[217]] needs to be struck, and a very severe warning isued.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And just saw this [[218]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    And this [[219]], I think now a block is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Slatersteven, it's a sock of an LTA, the account is now globally locked. GirthSummit (blether) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I have never encountered "globally locked" before, so was not sure what is was. But the PA's are sill in the edit summery. which was my main issue. All their edits shousl be struck.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Global locks are performed by stewards to prevent cross-wiki abuse, they prevent the user logging into the account. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having twice been collateral damage in global IP blocks (one by a steward who didn't respond to an email; one by a steward whose email was closed), I trust can be forgiven for wondering whether the stewards' procedures are always as surgically precise as might be desired. Narky Blert (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New User:11Anonymous1122 and disruptive editing

    WP:RULES (here) and the response has been a list of social media links [227]. I am requesting intervention to deal with this disruption. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I'm inclined to give 11Anonymous1122 a final warning, since on his talkpage he seems to at least realize he'll need to change his editing patterns. If it continues after that, a block would be in order. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vaselineeeeeeee

    Jack Morales Garcia blocked 2 weeks for socking by an SPI clerk (so the "which turned out to be false" is kind of a head scratcher). Anyway, no admin action needed now. Not sure if admin action against the OP is going to be needed in 2 weeks. We'll see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For the past 4 months me and this user have been engaging in some adversarial altercations. While you can recall retrospect by checking our talk page in Vito Rizzuto. And others. Where I continuously was editing and removing terms incurring violations of MOSCONTEXTBOI. Yesterday I edited Nicolo Rizzuto's page. And a new user Simsmacked with no new edits supported my side of the bargain. Considering the enmity between us. The user made false accusations against me and reported me for Sockpuppetry. Which turned out to be false. I left Vito Rizzuto's page and after 4 months got on Nicolo Rizzuto. And you can check my edits. Under which guidelines I operated. While the other user just kept on editing on basis of his perception. I believe this bad blood is going too far. And considering my inferior stature. I'd rather an administrator take this into his hands.Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bullying by Vaselineeeeeeee and archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive327#Concerning behaviour. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jack Morales Garcia, what is it that you're actually asking for here? You were implicated in an SPI, which clearly had merit because it caught a whole bunch of socks. Your account was not found to be part of the socking, but there was obviously something funny going on, and I'm sure Vaselineeeeeeee raised the report in good faith. He hasn't reverted you at Nicolo Rizzuto, or at any of the other articles you've edited in the last few days, so I'm not clear on what is it that you're actually reporting here, or what it is you want to happen. GirthSummit (blether) 17:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't keep up, keep trying to tag and fix the report and notify, etc. But yes, what Girth said, what exactly is the complaint here? What is going on that is beyond the capacity of you to handle and requires an admin get involved? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless I'm misreading the outcome of that SPI, two socks of Jack Morales Garcia were confirmed by the checkuser (Simsmackerel and Simon Niclas Miller), in addition to the separate group of unrelated socks. Number 57 18:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Number 57, correct, I just reviewed it and blocked the OP for two weeks, and the socks indefinitely. Jack Morales Garcia if you do something like that again, your next block will likely be indefinite. GirthSummit (blether) 18:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Apologies for the itchy head moment Floquenbeam - on a cursory look, I saw that a bunch of socks had been blocked, but not the OP, so assumed they hadn't been socking. On closer inspection (i.e. actually reading it), I saw that they were confirmed and just awaiting administration, which I've now done. Sorry for the goof, it's been a long day of teaching kids over Zoom, I should get away from the screen. GirthSummit (blether) 18:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Russian Vandal-Sockpuppet Admin KansasBear and Каракорум

    Yet another timesink by a serial sockpuppeteer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Kansas Bear User ID 2731577 and his other account Каракорум User ID 34432312 are Russian Sockpuppet and spy and delete the "Ottoman victory Ottoman captured Chyhyryn" and the 15 sources and evidence from 1676-1681 Russo-Turkish War. Ottoman captured Chyhyryn and won the (last) 1678 Campaign. Russia lost Chyhyryn. They write always Indecisive or Disputed They don't know even how to cite the course of the war and takes any battle for result although in the end of this book what they cite, is written for result Ottoman Victory because the war location was captured.


    He must look at final at last page number 172 and not any page battle for result

    For further reading

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Russo-Turkish-wars

    http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CC%5CH%5CChyhyryncampaigns1677hD78.htm

    Notes

    1.

    ^
    Despite the loss of Chyhyryn the war aims of greatest importance to Moscow were therefore achieved. Khan Murat Girei was compelled to negotiate at Bakhchisarai a twenty-year armistice with Muscovy formally acknowledging Kiev and the Left Bank as Muscovite possessions. Murat Girei played a crucial role in subsequently inducing Sultan Mehmet IV to ratify these same terms. For Mehmet IV and Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa the destruction of Chyhyryn was thereby rendered a Pyrrhic victory. Brian L. Davies, Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700, (Routledge, 2007), 172.

    2.

    ^
    In the decades preceding the Ottomans’ attempted siege of Vienna in 1683 Ottoman armies had successfully prosecuted single-front wars in Hungary (the sieges of Varad [Oradea] in 1660 and Uyvar [N. Zamky] in 1663), Crete (the siege of Candia [Heraklion] between 1667 and 1669], Poland (the siege of Kamanice [Kamanetz-Podolsk] in 1672 and Russia (the siege of Çehrin [Chyhyryn] in 1678). Rhoads Murphy, Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, (UCL Press 1999), 9.

    3. [^] Given Romodanovskii’s insistence the year before on the strategic necessity of holding Chyhyryn, this had the appearance of a major defeat, and it led many Ukrainians to blame Romodanovskii for incompetence or even treason. Actually Moscow had issued Romodanovskii secret orders to do everything to avoid battle with the Turks, to seek peace talks with them and to be prepared to sacrifice Chyhyryn rather than his army so as not to leave Kiev and the left bank under-defended. Chyhyryn was of greater importance to Samoilovich than to Moscow, which placed higher priority on defending Kiev and the left bank. The Russo-Turkish war of 1676–81 is usually seen as a stalemate or even as a Russian defeat because Chyhyryn had to be destroyed and the right bank was thereby lost to the Turks and Iurii Khmel’nyts’kyi

    Sources

    • Brian L. Davies, Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700, Routledge, 2007.
    • Rhoads Murphey Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, UCL Press 1999.
    • Brian Davies, Empire and Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century, Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
    • Maureen Perrie "The Cambridge History of Russia from early Rus to 1689", Cambridge University Press, 2006.
    • History of the Ottoman Turks,1288-1918, The library of University of California Los Angeles, 1868.
    • Davies, B. ‘The Second Chigirin Campaign (1678): Late Muscovite Power in Transition,’ in The Military and Society in Russia, 1450–1917, ed E. Lohr and M. Poe (Leiden 2002)
    • Dimitrie Cantemir, History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire Volume IIIJ. J., and P. Knapton., 1734.
    • Geschichte des Osmanischen Reich 1840.
    • Danishmend, Kronoloji, Türkiye Yayınevi, 1972.
    • C. Heywood, Kara Mustafa Paşa, In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Leiden, 1954-2004.
    • John Paxton and John Traynor, Leaders of Russia and the Soviet Union, Taylor & Francis Books Inc, 2004.
    • Hasan Karaköse, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Merzifon Vakfı, Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001.
    • Blochet, Catalogue, Suppl., Paris,1909.
    • The library of University of California Los Angeles, 1868. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenHorde55 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Give mine regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenHorde55 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected. A quick look seems like some boomerang blocks are incoming but I'm about to be AFK for a while so I'll let the next admin deal with those. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GoldenHorde55:, I suggest you hold off on tweaking your report. You started off with "Kansas Bear User ID 2731577 and his other account Каракорум User ID 34432312 are Russian Sockpuppet and spy", which is so stupid on its face that no one is going to bother reading beyond the first sentence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      A Russian Vandal Sockpuppet Admin? Sorry, totally implausible - "sockpuppet" has the wrong number of syllables for making a proper trochee pattern - try "Russian Vandal Socking Admin". SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 19:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Support boomerang block: DE, BATTLEGROUND [228], SPA, NOTHERE [229].  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karakeçi24 will make it more clear what is going on. All accounts that are still unblocked pass the duck test. I'm not an SPI regular, but I'll block them in a few minutes if someone else with an SPI-script that makes it easier doesn't do it first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Shirley, Floquenbeam, you mean "if no one else with an SPI-script that makes it easier does it first". Apparently they no longer teach symbolic logic in the schools, and this is the result. Shocking. EEng 19:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @EEng: I only went to a state school, while I think you went to one of them rich/fancy/snooty ones, but... doesn't your fix suffer from the same problem? "No one else with an SPI-script" (emphasis mine) should be just "no one with an SPI-script", no? What's the name of that Law that says any post correcting someone else's grammar is guaranteed to have a grammar error in it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      for posterity: Muphry's law. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (Sneer if you must but at least I didn't go to Yale.) A better link is
      WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. Meanwhile, the else underlines our faith that your native shrewdness, that innate cunning which is the delight of your friends, would surely prevent you from using a script to do the job, and then pointlessly doing it all over again. EEng 00:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    Large-scale unsourced "Muslims" category additions

    84.238.156.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding "Muslims" categories to BLPs without any mentions of a religious belief. A block and a rollback of the changes is necessary. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I previously brought up the same issue in December 2020 for 79.100.19.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [230]. Nobody responded and most of their BLP violations are still live. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sports vandal

    Indefblocked as NOTHERE. Sandstein 09:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Can we please get a

    WP:NOTHERE block for Vrayar? Almost every single one of this user's edits were minor vandalism and have been reverted: Special:Contributions/Vrayar SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I’m just editing for fun SportingFlyer. Then I let Wikipedia revert it to the way it was. Don’t need to block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrayar (talk • contribs) 23:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. As I note in your block log, "just editing for fun" doesn't cut it. You're fucking around, making work for other people, and haven't agreed to stop, so I've blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that is a defining example of
      WP:NOTHERE... --Jack Frost (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Regarding Userfication and Impersonation.

    Hello Admins. Can any admin look into these two requests:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hello,_Few_questions.

    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Impersonation

    Warm Regards.

    Abhayesports (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment); this is associated with two sockfarms,
    (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:AGF by targeting me directly without any proper evidence everywhere and you're giving out the final judgement while as there's an investigation going on. Idk what makes you do this, but I'd ask you to stop spamming false information. Abhayesports (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:MEATPUPPET. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Personal attacks

    Hi, I came to the talk page of Cancel culture in good faith looking at some dubious sourcing at the article, User:Crossroads asked me to not make vague complaints [231], so I came back to discuss the overall quyality of sourcing, making it clear I was happy to be corrected and to discuss things in a civil manner. Then Crossroads just launched into a personal attack:

    I feel like this is completely out of line and nothing more than a full blown personal attack. They do not own the page. I'm not seeking sanctions, I just want the personal attacks to removed, for the personal attacks to cease and for content discussion to be civil going forward.

    drum 04:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    What exactly did I say that is a personal attack?
    Readers of this thread should see the two previous ANI threads about this topic and involving Bacondrum. At
    WP:SATISFY him. [232] He is also again engaging in soapboxing on the talk page. [233] This report is frivolous, retaliatory, and an expression of the years-long misbehavior and POV pushing on this topic. I have therefore made a proposal below. Crossroads -talk- 05:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "Says who?" is not a valediction used by people "happy to be corrected and to discuss things in a civil manner." Crossroads' response was brusque, but I don't think it rises to a level that would ordinarily warrant administrator intervention. Your criticism of the sourcing may be completely correct on the merits (I admit I have no interest in or desire to enter the underlying content dispute here), but it comes across as something of a Gish gallop. A more focused and sequential approach to criticism of these sources would do more to drive article improvement than asking administrators to tone-police the discussion. Choess (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any personal attacks; any chance of a clue? Is any text in the article actually wrong? It looks like the topic ban proposal below is the way to go but I'll have to leave examining that for later. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not seeing a PA in the OP, and definitely not a "a full blown personal attack" diff. Bacondrum seems to be upset that Crossroads is brining up past ANIs (I'm entitled to move on from past behaviour andbe given the assumption of good faith.); I agree they should be allowed to "move on from past behaviour", but this requires actually moving on, not just a rinse and repeat.
    • The first ANI about Online shaming closed with an admission by Bacondrum that they were in the wrong, and an offer of a "second chance" but with the expectation, "If and/or when they return to it, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that's both collegial and collaborative." Comments made by experienced editors make it clear that their conduct on the page was not acceptable. They state near the end of the thread re: Online shaming, I'm more than happy to leave it, I've played my part in improving the article. But this didn't happen as the second ANI shows.
    • The second ANI about Online shaming was started by Bacondrum and resulted in a boomerang partial block from the article and talk page for 3 months. While they disagreed with the block, they stated, I leave the article alone, it'll end up being an incomprehensible mess, but so be it. They might have left Online shaming, but they followed the same subject to the to the current article Cancel culture and we're back for a third round at ANI, again the OP is Bacondrum and after the second ANI they started backfired, they should have been very cautious about started another.
    • I don't care about the topic and normally wouldn't have commented, but this section
      Call-out culture (the parent of Cancel culture) with the same Keep result [235], but you still started Talk:Cancel culture#Notability issues
      on the talk page. You're not LISTENING and refusing to DROPTHESTICK.
    Getting into the content dispute here is inappropriate and a distraction. The issue that belongs here is Bacondrum's conduct at the discussion. Bacondrum, I don't know who is "right" on the content dispute (it's ultimately irrelevant here), but an editor can be completely "right" about a content dispute, but completely wrong in the way they go about making their point. Again I have no idea who is "right", but I think the way you're going about the discussion is wrong - you're bludgeoning and battlegrounding, refusing to LISTEN and DROPTHESTICK on a topic that you clearly have an issue with participating constructively in and in the past you've acknowledged you should leave it alone, but seem not to be able to despite two very clear warnings. I've said this before, there are certain subject areas I do not go into because I know if I do I will be banned. I think this is true for all editors and experienced editors recognize it and abstain for their own good. Bacondrum I state all of the above with nothing but goodwill, take it or leave it.
    Normally I'd say give the editor a chance to voluntarily abstain from the topic before a ban, but been there done that, and they have not been able to. I think a topic ban unfortunately may be needed, not based on this particular incident, but on this and the above. I also think it might be in the best interests of Bacondrum, before this gets worse and results in something more. However if they are willing to state they will abstain, I'd oppose a formal topic ban with the proviso this is the final chance. I defintely don't want to see a formal ban unless its absolutely needed.  // Timothy :: talk  07:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to topic ban Bacondrum from cancel culture

    Thanks BMK, I'd gladly focus on content rather than each other.
    drum 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
      • I went into more detail why Bacondrum's post at Talk:Cancel culture was tendentious in my reply to him there. Crossroads -talk- 09:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't get it. You want folks to dig through that talk page and pick this out themselves? If a proposal for sanctions is made here, it should be presented with sufficient context and diffs of problematic edits. It's not very effective to expect editors to go digging and figure it out themselves (and seems like railroading otherwise). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not what I said. Here is Bacondrum's long post, [236] which as I said above is "WP:SEALIONing by tendentiously arguing that various WP:Reliable sources are not reliable, using WP:UNDUE as a POV cudgel, and demanding I WP:SATISFY him", my reply going into some detail with the issues in it, [237] and a recent post by Nil Einne [238] zooming into the misleadingness of one point in particular. Crossroads -talk- 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I have skimmed that thread and don't see anything wrong with it. SEALIONing does not seem to be apparent. Their listing of "Op-eds, analysis and opinion pieces" is not because the sources are not RS, but because Bacondrum believes they're biased/opinion pieces/etc. He then lists a bunch of journal sources (ie
        WP:ATONED. If the editor is being productive now, there's no reason to hold his past misgivings against him. If there's a problem with that section, it is not apparent to me. Are there any serious conduct issues that have to be dealt with here, or what are we doing here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
    • Comment I've protected Cancel culture for a day due to some disruptive editing which appears to be mainly by IP editors. Confirmed users can still edit. (I see continued discussion on the talk page.) I would suggest to Bacondrum to tread lightly here (and filing this "PA" complaint where others seem to think it's not a PA is a step in the wrong direction) Historically editors with block logs tend to gain the attention of admins (rightly or wrongly) when they have multiple (page) blocks in the last 9 months. You seem to be passionate on this online shaming/cancel culture topic, which is fine; but I'd suggest a more tempered approach. Just IMO. No preference on this topic ban proposal. — Ched (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the toe-stepping, but I've set the semiprotection not to expire, because it looks like there has been little if any reprieve from frequent non-confirmed disruption (for a long time), which I don't conceive getting better any time soon, which is to say: for the foreseeable future. El_C 14:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If a sanction is requested for "years of time-wasting", we're going to need more specific examples than this, and also recent examples of recent disruption. I looked at the talkpage and can't see anything particularly problematic (indeed, surely listing possibly unreliable sources is a good thing?) whilst Bacondrum doesn't appear to be edit warring or anything else on the article itself - infact they haven't edited it much at all recently and the last time they removed content was nearly a month ago and actually restored the article to a version by Crossroads. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall, that's my sense, too. Though, as usual, Black Kite phrases it better than I could. El_C 14:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My proposal is not for the recent conduct alone. It is for the years-long pattern of disruption on the topic of which the recent activity shows the same issues are present; tendentious and misleading argumentation on the talk page coupled with frivolous ANI reports of "opponents" is still disruption even if one doesn't mess with the article itself (yet), though he is clearly building up to doing so. Considering he was already warned at the first ANI and given a 3 month block from the topic at the second, and that he opened this thread on me, this is where we're at. Crossroads -talk- 14:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crossroads, that may sidestep the point of this being a rather slow trickle recently so as to be actionable, as opposed to a steady stream, not to mention anything torrential... El_C 14:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a long winded personal attack, look how desperate he is to have me topic banned!!! For what, for daring to discuss issues with his article? I'm absolutely certain I've done nothing wrong this time round, I've asked to discuss sources? OMG, someone get the noose! Crossroads is being a bully and
      drum 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Look at crossroads edit history, he certainly spends a lot of time here trying to get people blocked, fella isn't even an admin.
    drum 22:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Whatever that's supposed to mean. Clearly you have too strong of feelings on this topic. As for "owning", there's no evidence of that on my part. You, however, have previously ground the topic down to a dicdef and engaged in ownership to keep it that way (documented at the last ANI); the latest argumentation is more of the same. Crossroads -talk- 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Restored comment of mine which Bacondrum removed. [239] Crossroads -talk- 05:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should boomerang, Crossroads is
      drum 23:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    That was not a personal attack by C. because the statement was strongly supported by links. You are right that people should not discuss each other on article talk pages. But a lot more importantly, they should not bring each other to ANI instead of peacefully resolving their differences on article talk page, and especially if they had was a history of previous similar discussions on ANI, as you do. By bringing this here you are making a disservice to yourself and waste time of other contributors. This will only get you blocked or topic banned. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    if you look at history of the Cancel Culture article you'll see changes by different editors are routinely reverted by the Crossroads to keep the article unchanged. I have done nothing improper of the sort. Got any diffs for this accusation or is this just
    WP:ASPERSIONS? Crossroads -talk- 05:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Notice the statement Crossroads over zealous desire see other editors blocked should also be addressed, the level of participation at ANI despite not being an admin appears to be malicious.. A remarkable accusation considering Bacondrum filed this report. Bacondrum was also here last week after seemingly threatening another editor with a block over a content dispute. I genuinely believe there may be a
    WP:CIR issue here, but at the same time, Bacondrum seems clever enough to slide each time they end up on these forums, so they must be doing something right. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I made it clear in the post that I wanted to discuss the sources, not remove them and was open to the idea that I may very well be wrong about some: "So I hope we can have a calm and civil discussion about sourcing in this article. I've been told that vague complaining is useless, so I'm going to get very specific - I'm sure I've got some of this wrong and am happy to be corrected and discuss." This pile on by the anti-bacondrum squad is a straight up attack, it's why so many editors walk away from this project, it's just vindictive BS.
    drum 02:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    User:Proud Cow worshipper Manas Bose & Harrassment

    Proud Cow worshipper Manas Bose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not much to state, can we get a block here? Appears to be throwaway account created for harassment purposes. See related Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manasbose. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear me, yes. Thank you, Tayi Arajakate. Bishonen | tålk 07:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen, a new one has popped up and they are impersonating me this time. See Tayi Arajakate public account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), can you take care of it? Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock

    A few weeks ago, an IP contacted an editor off-wiki, making threats against them and their family following a dispute.[240] The IPs they were using (93.143.83.30 (talk · contribs), 93.143.81.30 (talk · contribs) and 93.143.70.241 (talk · contribs) were blocked by myself and Drmies. They have since reappeared, using IPs 93.142.144.188 (talk · contribs), 93.142.155.169 (talk · contribs) and 93.142.139.21 (talk · contribs) amongst others. Is it possible for a rangeblock to be issued to cover these addresses? Cheers, Number 57 11:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Number 57: 93.142.128.0/19 and 93.143.64.0/19 will do the job. 93.143.64.0/19 is already blocked by Drmies for six months and the most recent IP used in the other range 93.142.144.188 has been blocked by GiantSnowman. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GiantSnowman, please see if you want to place that rangeblock on 93.142.128.0/19. It seems to be all soccer, and all from the same uncollegial, rude, uncollaborative editor--as far as I'm concerned we block it, but you're the soccer expert. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: - that range looks spot on. GiantSnowman 18:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the same range was blocked last year for "personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy" (I guess this amongst others). Given the recent, rather extreme behaviour, plus a track record of stuff like this and anti-semitic abuse (some of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia), which dates back to 2009, I would suggest a ban is in order for this IP editor. Number 57 19:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, absolutely vile - support ban for this editor. GiantSnowman 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ban per nom Shushugah (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ew, that’s....ugly. Support ban. Block on sight, we don’t need such vileness on the wiki. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Paradise Chronicle and justification of a massacre

    Hello.

    consensus for his/her edits. He had also engaged in disruptive editing as seen here, and called Bloomberg's statement Turkish POV. Paradise Chronicle has been around for two years now, the user isn't new to Wikipedia. Paradise Chronicle is also well engaged in articles within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan. He has been warned of disruptive editing. He also had received warnings and sanctions in the past (1, 2), and is aware of the discretionary sanctions. I view the user's edit and behavioural pattern as worrying, and therefore have to ask for action. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Black Kite, I'm also thinking to merge these articles. Also, we're not using Turkish sources, where did you got that? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article uses the pro-government Sabah seven times, for example. However even where Western sources are used, they often say "Turkey says that...", and this isn't being made clear. This was the same problem that we had with the Claw Eagle 2 article. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite, I'm well aware that the Daily Sabah is pro-government, that's why I've omitted it from controversial issues. Sabah is mostly cited for reactions to the massacre by domestic figures and foreign countries; ref [14] is for the phrase Turkish sources reported. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (
      WP:ARBAA2, so this topic area may be a problematic spillover that's also actionable against them, as well. Again, not sure at this time about that, either. El_C 13:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    El_C, justifying the massacre of civilians and unarmed policemen is wrong; such behavior is not toleratable, and the editor has no source to back up his/her claims either. He is well aware of denying the massacre and then blaming Turkey; he constantly pushes that rhetoric. I don't know why isn't this an actionable report. It is already stated by a human rights organisation that PKK's claims were very likely to be untrue. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, because I'm not familiar with any of the pertinent details right now, I can offer no meaningful follow up at this time. El_C 14:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Do any sources (other than Erdogan propaganda) call it the "Gara Massacre" or a "massacre" at all? Levivich harass/hound 14:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Levivich, most Turkey-based sources, including independent and opposition ones (like CNN, Cumhuriyet 1, Cumhuriyet 2, ODA TV, T24) refer to it as massacre. You don't have to use the Erdogan propaganda on me, I'm well acquainted with the nature of Turkish media and the existing guidelines of Wikipedia. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps CNN_Türk#Controversies would be of interest...? Otherwise, I don't think I've ever heard of any of these other sources. El_C 14:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C, that's interesting.
    • Didn't knew CNN Türk had faced such stuff, so I'll avoid it from now on.
    • I'm surprised you haven't heard of Cumhuriyet, its in opposition to AKP and had exposed Turkish intelligence service's ties with Islamists in Syria, and got Can Dündar on board. Even the wiki article lead says It has been described as "the most important independent public interest newspaper in contemporary Turkey".
    • OdaTV is independent and got tensions from the government in the past.
    • T24 also is on government radar, per the article's History section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just above you wrote we're not using Turkish sources, where did you got that? But all your sources are Turkish. Do they even use the word "massacre" in their own voice? Please quote. Levivich harass/hound 15:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Levivich, I was referring to the body of the article, not the naming. You can't simply just relate something to everything about the article. Anyways, here are the quotes: AKP's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who attended his party's Rize Provincial Congress, was on the congress agenda after his speech about the Gara Massacre, in which 13 soldiers and police were killed (Cumhuriyet); What did the U.s.'s "deep" establishment write after the Gara massacre? (Oda TV). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Gara massacre, and when another editor pushed back on that, you've opened this ANI accusing them of denying or justifying a massacre. Tell me why I'm wrong: show me non-Turkish sources that support anything you said in your opening post here (mainly, that this was a "massacre", as opposed to how, for instance, The New York Times describes it, "President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed the United States and opposition Kurdish politicians in an effort to deflect responsibility for a failed rescue operation.", or as another example, your claim here that those killed included civilians, as opposed to military, intelligence, and state police personnel). [241]). Levivich harass/hound 16:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
    I, too, would take the US'
    paper of record over Turkish sources as a top-tier 3rd-party source. I'll also note that extending Solavirum's ARBAA2 topic ban to also encompass the ARBKURDS topic area (due to obvious potential POV-spillover issues) is certainly an option that is on the table. El_C 16:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    For those interested, last week I left some sources at Operation Claw-Eagle 2#Further reading, mainly to demonstrate that there are plenty of top-international-journalism-RS that can be used for that topic, and no Turkish media is really necessary (at least not for wikivoice statements). (Also, the NYT piece is already used as a source in that article, along with other good RSes.) I did this because there was a lot of POVish editing back and forth. It seemed to subside. Now I realize maybe that was only because the article was forked.
    The fork should be CSDed #3, or if it isn't blatant enough for that, I'm happy to AFD it (there is nothing to merge AFAICS because there is nothing properly sourced in the fork).
    As for Solavirum, ARBKURDS TBAN at least, but that would be the second TBAN inside of a month, and this is like—what? the fifth? sixth? noticeboard report in the last... maybe six months? That I've noticed anyway. I'm concerned whether Solavirum can edit in line with policies anywhere. Accusing PC of denying a massacre is basically a personal attack in this context. This is like somebody starting another article about the
    War of Northern Aggression and then claiming that an editor objecting to that is "denying or justifying Northern aggression". Levivich harass/hound 16:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • (edit conflict) Solavirum, I get that there may be the expectation for me to be knowledgeable about the in-and-outs of every country of note (sorry to disappoint), but I actually am not too familiar with the particulars of Turkish opposition politics and/or opposition press (beyond some of the salient attributes). Which isn't the point. What is the point is that these opposition writers/editors may need to compromise here and there, even if only to show the coalition-minded folks that they are not merely contrarians, which could manifest in a number of ways (including bowing to certain broad national sentiments). Beyond that, they and their loved ones also have to live in Turkey (even those writing from overseas are likely to have loved ones living in Turkey), so that also could manifest in a number of ways. Just as a general point, irrespective of whatever is the factual veracity of this particular matter. El_C 15:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C, those are your own interpretations and are beyond Wikipedia's scope. I mean, seriously, how are those assumed scenarios related here? In any case, there's a consensus in the Western media that Cumhuriyet is a trusted source, it was even recognised by Reporters Without Borders. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's BirGün calling it a massacre too. So, clearly, this isn't Erdoğan propaganda. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Solavirum, this notwithstanding, I, myself, still am unsure about the factual veracity of this or that, per this or that Turkish source (opposition or otherwise). Possibly, it's an
    WP:BURDEN) issues, they ought to be examined in their own right, ones which I will comment on as I see fit, even if you, yourself, may view such comments as too speculative. I am well-able to self-censor when the moment calls for it. El_C 15:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    El_C, we can move the issue concerning that it should be called a massacre or not to the noticeboard. The issue in this report was diverted to a different place in any case. Whether or not you call it a massacre, execution, attack, or killings, the report is about Paradise pushing the POV of a terrorist organisation and constantly engaging in denialism. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, Solavirum, I'm getting the sense from your description directly above as well as also per Levivich above that, that additional sanctions may, in fact, be due here for you, rather than anyone else. El_C 16:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C I would suggest that "pushing the POV of a terorist organisation" and "justifying the killing of unarmed civilians" in this thread alone (neither of which I can see that Paradise Chronicle has actually done) is definitely not a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite, right, and moreover, it points to more of the same, which is especially disconcerting with the ARBAA2 topic ban still being a recent thing. El_C 22:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Responding to Boomerang: Levivich, no. What you wrote there was completely wrong. The article itself wasn't created by me, nor I chose the headline. My work here was to expand the article. Furthermore, "Operation Claw-Eagle 2" can only be included in the background of the article, as the main issue was the mass execution. When another editor pushed back on that, you've opened this ANI accusing them of denying or justifying a massacre, no? It seems like you haven't check the discussion on the article's talk page. Paradise claims that the victims died in Turkish bombardment, and weren't killed by PKK. If you want sources for PKK's action, I can provide them. I really don't care if you call it a massacre, killing, or attack. The denial of PKK's actions is why I opened this report. Or as another example, your claim here that those killed included civilians, as opposed to military, intelligence, and state police personnel, yet again, I didn't do that. Among the victims were policemen, military servicemen, and civilians, including an Iraqi. I never claimed that civilians only were massacred. My concern is the name of the article, but the justification provided by Paradise, that being Turkey didn't negotiated. This is like saying that the Jews had it coming in the 1940s because they didn't left Germany before. El_C, the United States State Department had stated that PKK bore the responsibility for the attack. For you latest comment, I'm really disappointed to see that you're fully okay with someone on wiki, without providing any reliable sources, engaging in such acts. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Solavirum, I'd appreciate if you were to refrain from drawing any analogies between this and The Holocaust. I consider that, at the very least, to be an inappropriate hyperbole. El_C 17:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Solavirum, please provide an English-language source that says, in its own voice, that the PKK killed those hostages. I could be wrong, but I do not believe such a source exists.
    You may not have created this article, but you are the primary author. The more I dig, the worse it gets:
    I haven't fully reviewed the article or all edits yet, but I've seen enough that I have tagged the article and will now send it to AFD. Levivich harass/hound 17:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, there you go. There's also confirmation by an independent human rights organisation in the same article.
    • Anadolu Agency isn't deprecated. I've used Anadolu to reference statements by foreign ministries, seems like you've omitted that fact.
    • Again, you're wrong and making premature assumptions. That {{
      or
      }} issue was with the motive of the attack provided in the infobox, which I solved.
    • What a nice way to claim original research when I've provided several sources saying that PKK did it.
    • The victims included six civilians, the others were military and police personnel ([247]). The NYT article you've cited several times is premature. Firstly, there were no autopsy reports then. And interestingly enough, many Western sources don't even have a consensus on the role of the victims. Reuters say 13 kidnapped Turks, including military and police personnel. This doesn't mean that every single one of them was working for the country's security services.

    In virtually every single comment of yours, you have either provided premature or wrong assumptions. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming for the sake of argument that
    WP:RS, those two articles you linked to do not say the PKK killed the hostages; they say that Turkey says the PKK killed the hostages, and that the PKK says Turkey killed the hostages. Same with "six civilians" (I guess we're down from 13 now?): that's what Turkey says, that's not what MEE is saying in its own voice. Levivich harass/hound 17:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The creator of

    Gara massacre, Pivox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was at ANI in June 2017 about a related PKK-Turkish matter Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#How should I handle this situation?, and seemed to have more or less stopped editing then, until 2020. Someone with goggles might want to look at their deleted edits and creations. Levivich harass/hound 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Here comes my defense, if it is needed. I have not justified a massacre. I have just seen that most sources refer (like Guardian, Bloomberg, NYT, Reuters) to Turkish reports and others are Turkish media articles and then to present it as a fact that the PKK is to blame for an execution or an "attack" on Turkish reports is just not NPOV. Also, as to my account there is no independent autopsy report available so far. Reuters refers to Turkish military and Governmental sources when mentioning the victims and reports the autopsy is being done in Malatya, Turkey.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unrelated AE block of Solavirum

    User_talk:Solavirum#AE_block

    Note that I have blocked Solavirum for 2 weeks for a topic ban violation that happened about a week ago, but was just reported to me now. As I note on their talk page and in the

    log, I've left them the ability to continue editing project pages, so that they can still keep contributing to this discussion. But, otherwise, for all intents and purposes, the block should be viewed as sitewide. I have no additional comment at the moment. El_C 04:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Similar article at AfD

    Before their ARBAA2 topic ban, Solavirum created Agdaban massacre which has a large number of similarities to the Gara massacre page. Both are based on events that clearly happened, but which completely lack third-party sources attesting to them being massacres. The only source at Agdaban massacre which isn't self-evidently unreliable is a BBC Azeri piece, which looks highly suspect to me – perhaps a more extreme case of the issues at CNN Turk which El_C points out above? I figured I'd draw it to the attention of editors here given the common features and editor. Jr8825 • Talk 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding wrong nomination of Kevin Eze (entrepreneur)

    OP indeffed. Cuoxo also indeffed for spamming. MER-C 18:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A new User:Cuoxo with only having around 169 edits is nominating notable pages of entrepreneurs without checking any of the sources. Like, If you will check in Kevin page there are 8 sources so far and from all good websites. He is clearly notable. I suggest admins undo the nomination made by Cuoxo. Dinktods (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone is free to nominate an article for a deletion discussion provided they follow policy and provide a reasonable nomination. Unlike Cuoxo's nomination of the article in question, your comments here are completely out of line and unreasonable and I suggest you drop it. CUPIDICAE💕 15:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Who are you now? Are you Cuoxos Advocate or something? I will wait for only the admins' comments here. Until then, you can see the references on Kevin's page he is clearly notable from every aspect, and also I will advise you to make yourself more familiar with Wikipedia notability guidelines. Dinktods (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I have closed
    spammy. El_C 15:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Further legal threats from editor already blocked for legal threats

    RESOLVED
    (non-admin closure) Wikigeek2011's unblock request denied by RickinBaltimore and talk page access revoked by El C for legal threats. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Wikigeek2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for undisclosed paid editing following a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Legal threat from editor with COI, which includes various legal threats they have also made. They have made this post on their talk page threatening the blocking admin (User:EvergreenFir) with legal action stating I am trying to help E/F by advising s/he will be in court to defend this, plus two other mentions of court proceedings in a related unblock request here. FDW777 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've declined the unblock request for that rather clear legal threat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also revoked talk page access per the unambiguous
    WP:UTRS. El_C 16:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Trolling of talk pages and threats

    Would like to request some urgent admin attention over at

    Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2). As you can see there has been a pile on by unconfirmed editors, IPs towards myself and RandomCanadian
    . This includes and is not limited to multiple calls (and empty threats) for us to kill ourselves as well as major spamming because of a content dispute. Please can some delete the edits and hide them permanently? I'm not too fussed about actual content of the edits however, it has gotten out of hand.

    Involved users:

    I suspect some of the perpetrators might be sock puppets of each other.

    Notified the involved users.≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like Deepfriedokra is in the midst of sorting it out. El_C 22:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response(s). Must have happened while I was filing the report. Can we redact the threats from the page history please? Is any further admin support required? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also some very probably copyvio (the big edit here) and some more blatant threats like this. Though as I said since that was there pretty much throughout the whole bit can probably be revdelled. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloody Hell! I just semi'd a talk page. Revdle'd. Blocked. Please someone, check my work. I doubt if I blocked all of the mob that attacked that page. Adjust as you see fit. Actions of this magnitude need double checking. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Never seen such a pile on, so quickly. Thanks again for the swift action. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Deepfriedokra, I protected the main article a couple of days ago, so I guess we can be RuPaul buddies! El_C 23:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    - I feel uncomfortable with the article being unprotected given what's happened today. What do you think> ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The full protection expires on the 10th. It was imposed due to edit warring among
    EC users. Not sure I want to touch that further just yet. El_C 23:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    We (by that meaning not myself because I'm not an admin and if I were, I'm involved) can probably stick indefinite SP (but if I remember correctly that page was already protected, hence the reason I fell upon it and fell into this when I was going through CAT:ESP) under the full protection. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. But the semiprotection that my full protection overwrote was set to expire on the 12th. El_C 00:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The more pragmatic deadline would be the figure out when the last episode of this will air and have SP expire a week or two after that; but given that this has an apparently very dedicated Wikipedia-editing fan following, not sure if it will just cease all of a sudden when it goes out of the short-term memory of the said fan group. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 93.153.87.247 disruptive editing

    Long-term disruptive

    WP:ARBBLP. Not posting actual diff(s) of BLP vios here for privacy reasons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 23:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NPA
    by Safi1919

    The bold! The goggles do nothing! Erm, I mean, indeffed. //Nothing to see here, move along. El_C 23:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Safi1919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Changed (sourced) Persian to Afghan [249]

    My edits were historically accurate and true. This page was contained false information about. Ghazni is province of Afghanistan and Bayhaqi is an Afghan not Iranian. Why would revert this true information? Are an Iranian agent and spreading Iranian propaganda?

    Sure you can report me and I can report for spreading Iranian propaganda.

    Did Iran existed at that time? Afghan people always existed, and we Afghans have always been aware of dirty Iranian propaganda and falsehood. Iran is the biggest spreader of terrorism, shiaism, and falsehood in world. It won't work on Afghans. I will gladly report as an agent of Iran as well.

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Asqueladd point of view in Spain

    User says that "It is the generic one not presuming gender" in "King of Spain" infobox label and erase some image climate of Spain and by some reason puts this text: "Undid revision 1010126176 by Eightbenny (talk) Discuss in the talk page.". User is likely from Spain. Please, revert that edits. --Eightbenny (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a content dispute at this stage. The proper place to discuss would be Talk:Spain, where neither has engaged so far. To be fair it should probably use whatever the current title is. So to take another example it's Queen Elizabeth II (UK and Commonwealth) [and on her death it will be King Charles (whatever the number)]. And I don't know if all monarchies have adopted less gender restrictive rules (UK has, me thinks, but I have no clue about Spain) - so it's also more likely to be King in the future... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But because typical user's tone I consider more aproppriate make a request. --Eightbenny (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the edit summaries I don't see any issue of tone or uncivility. ANI is for issues of behaviour. Except for failing to use the talk page, I don't see one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is not Asqueladd but Eightbenny. He wants to edit-war.
    (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)}[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:UNCIVIL. Greetings!. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @RandomCanadian: user justs makes superfluous justifications. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I wasn't clear enough in my first comment: "The proper place to discuss would be
    edit warring. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    For me, is inappropriate manage that type of users just in talk page. I believe. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You see it?, they were even two biased users. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just informing that I've filed a sockpuppet investigation on Eightbenny Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janitor102. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, wasn't aware of that possibility. Of course if these suspicions are founded then we should let that process run it's course. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilty of being a sockpuppet of another editor, of violating the BLP policy,[250][251][252] of edit-warring against
    (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Don't known, because but you edit few and in ethnic pages just to camouflage disruptive editing in "sockpuppets". --Eightbenny (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that even mean? M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbhotch is in my point of view, a biased user. --Eightbenny (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP of this thread also opened
    WP:EWN#User:Tbhotch reported by User:Eightbenny (Result: ). I blocked from mainspace for 48 hours but the SPI does look like a match to me based on page-level editing (I haven't looked deeper). --Izno (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Beaneater00 - When did it become ok to use racial slurs in usernames?

    "Bean eater" is a widely-known racist slur (see also Beaner). Why on earth is an editor called Beaneater00 not already blocked simply for the name? If one assumes good faith about the choice of name being possibly a reference to simply enjoying eating beans, the name itself will still be offensive to many people. This user is actively engaged in editing far-right US political topics (including arguing about the designation of America First Political Action Conference as White Nationalist), which suggests that they are very much aware of the offensiveness of the name. Mo Billings (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @
    WP:UAA (where, with a justification such as the one you give above, a block would likely be forthcoming). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The old name of the Braves was the Boston Beaneaters, so it's not hard to see another entirely anodyne explanation. Regardless, UAA is for unambiguous violations; the proper venue for a discussion is
    WP:RFC/N. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm glad they changed it to something that no one could construe as racist. Mo Billings (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering their anti-semetic "jokes" a few months back, it's really no surprise. UAA won't be worth anything in this case. They never should've been unblocked. CUPIDICAE💕 00:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well with the above it seemed rather unambiguous to me. Wasn't aware the Braves were once called the Beaneaters (was aware they were formerly in Boston); apparently that is a century old though and it lasted barely more than a decade, though, so the racist explanation is more likely... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the only association in my mind with "beaneater" is that it's slang for someone from Boston, a.k.a. "Beantown". I've never heard of it being a slur for Mexicans. I believe that last time I head it used to mean a Bostonian was on an episode of M*A*S*H. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the reopen @Davey2010:, but there are more than enough concerns about this users choice of name and editing to warrant an indeff. Since being somehow unblocked by Arbcom after previously being blocked for similar disruptive editing, they've made very little useful edits, mostly pushing POV, edit warring when their edits are reverted, or trolling/ messing around, here are just a few examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and admitting to being anti-semitic. There's also this bizarre edit where they randomly add ">This user comes from Israel." after another users comment in a discussion they're not even a part of, these user boxes, and being banned from wikipedia's discord server with the reason "alt-right". Even disregarding all of that, they're evading the block of their previous account User:Tablekitten, which was blocked back in 2018 for vandalism; it has the same topic interest and the same name as Beaneater00's discord account. I've blocked them, review is welcome. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI help 02:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd forgotten this user. It looks like I declined two UTRS unblock requests. Be interested in hearing ArbCom's reasoning for unblocking. Anyone want to propose a CBAN? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Deepfriedokra, Yes that would be highly appreciated, this dumb saga needs to end, they are an obvious net negative. I actually emailed arbcom asking them to re-indeff this user since they're the ones that unblocked them and they seem like the type to harass, but they declined and referred it back to the community, so I decided to block. This and other blocks/unblocks/other events appear to be part of an ongoing fracture between Arbcom and the Functionaries, which appears to be something people are aware of but are saying nothing about. I'm angry and getting tired of it. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI help 03:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I am also curious as to what reasoning convinced ArbCom to undo a CheckUser account block of someone who had been evidently editing disruptively (from my brief review of their contributions at the time of the original CU block). For what it's worth, I endorse re-blocking. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Weist

    OP blocked via CU by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An article that I have been working on helping, has been repeatedly targeted by User:Praxidicae - that article is not unambiguously promotional, because it cites all sources, which all meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, Wikipedia:NACTOR. Michael G. Weist III

    Additionally, in terms of notability, he is the subject of a Hulu documentary, Jawline that won Sundance Film Festival. A quick google search clearly shows this. As i started to dig around and get started with helping this article, I see that User:Praxidicae has done nothing to help the article, but simply "delete." Narwhal90 (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • "that article is not unambiguously promotional, because it cites all sources" indicates you don't understand what "unambiguously promotional" means. And I'm going to have to warn you for that "repeatedly targeted" comment, which shows a lack of good faith. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG Narwhal90, are you still trying to promote that, eh, movie star? Onlookers, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashlynnrobertson361/Archive. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Drmies In any case, user requested that more sources were added, so that was added after their request. I apologize, I did assume good faith - was just trying to make a point. Forgive me! Regardless, this surely meets the WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, Wikipedia:NACTOR requirements, yet, here we are! Would you mind helping me get this resolved? Rather than deleting the article, user could've simply edited anything out. I'd be happy to make any edits!! Narwhal90 (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible impersonation of deceased Wikipedian

    Hello, I came across Sbuogakrmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the user creation log. A couple of suspicious things here:

    1. The account's first edit is an RFA for NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs). Its only other edit as of this writing is a notification of the RFA at North's user talk page. Note: I don't suspect NorthBySouthBaranof of any wrongdoing at this time.
    2. The account's signature says "KevanGormen", which last I checked (admittedly several years ago) is not a violation in and of itself since it links to the correct user page and user talk page.
    3. I noted that "KevanGormen" is suspiciously similar to Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs), a deceased Wikipedian that seems to have been well-respected in some circles (I never interacted with him AFAIK), which got me wondering if this is a case of impersonation.

    Can some folks look into this? I find it highly unlikely that Sbuogakrmn is a truly new user. I smell a sock but I don't know who the master would be. TIA. —KuyaBriBriTalk 03:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty clear impersonation/vandalism. I blanked/db-tagged the page and the sock should be blocked/CUed. Likely that whoever's doing it is CU-aware and the lead will go nowhere, but worth a try. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kuyabribri: @NorthBySouthBaranof: Yeah it's a perennial LTA obsessed with impersonating Kevin Gorman. I've blocked them, Total weirdo behavior. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI help 04:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I first met Kevin Gorman at a conference on Wikipedia in Higher Education in Boston in 2011, even though we were both Northern Californians. He was a thin, intense UC Berkeley student interested in mushrooms, philosophy and gender equity. He had obvious physical health problems that may have affected his mental health as he sometimes showed signs of stress when I interacted with him at edit-a-thons in Berkeley and San Francisco. He was totally devoted to Wikipedia and contributed some great content but was also drawn into various ugly gender related disputes. And then he died way too young of the health conditions I had perceived years earlier. I met some of his family members after his death at the Wikimedia North America conference in San Diego in 2016. Five years later, there is a vile troll who obsessively engages in reprehensible socking behavior to besmirch his memory and mock him in death. A truly sick puppy. Revert and deny. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Any chance of an edit filter to stop any attempts to post using various re-spellings of "Kevin Gorman"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoration of honorific prefixes in articles of deceased public figures (like politicians)

    Dunno if this is the right venue for this complaint, but I'd like to report IP user 120.29.77.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for re-adding honorific prefixes in articles where they aren't applicable despite having been warned in the talk page and reverted several times by other editors. This has been his only (and recent) activity since joining the website. Nincompoopian (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It would help if you would give specific examples so we don't have to pour through all his contribs and guess which you object to. Honorific prefixes are part of the template, although they should be sourced like any other content. If they don't belong at all, then yes, but it would help to give us a list of some. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ucfberrada

    Reporting for repeated

    WP:UNCIVIL behaviour like this, they need to take time off Wikipedia IMO. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 13:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NONAZIS

    AP295 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    We have the userpage blog (discussion). We have the robust defense of antisemitism. We have the belief that article talk-pages are a debating society, coupled with a complete failure to work collaboratively with anyone (1, 2, 3). We have repeated edit-warring when they don't get their way (see talk page history). We have, as far as I can tell, 0 actual improvements made to any Wikipedia article. This user is a time-sink who is not here to improve the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for gods sake, the article is mortifying. It's not even close to conforming with
    WP:BLP. No, his offhanded comment does not make him an anti-semite. Criticizing Jewish culture does not make him an anti-semite either, notwithstanding the ADL's hair-trigger accusations of anti-semitism. If his work is illegitimate, then it should be possible to inform the reader as such without ad hominem attacks. AP295 (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Are you trolling? CUPIDICAE💕 17:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    tfw someone argues that telling an interviewer "Jews are gonna destroy America as a white country" is a mere offhanded comment and not prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You should see the subjects twitter feed. It's not even subtle. CUPIDICAE💕 18:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It really doesn't fit that criteria. He was using the page for Wikipedia related opining. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say its pretty
    WP:POLEMIC. CUPIDICAE💕 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Thanks, all. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to article ban Cambial Yellowing from United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020

    • Support, to end their effective ownership of the article and tendentious editing through countless edit wars / breaking of the 3RR, misappropriations of wikipedia policy they clearly understand, referring to sources which don't back their increasingly absurd arguments (they hope you don't have the time to read through), rarely conceding obvious facts to ensure discussion only ends when every other editor gives up, regularly filing reports on other's behaviour which they don't adhere to themselves... for the purpose of including as much negative material and skewing the language of the article to make the act it describes appear to have a greater imposition than reality.146.198.108.170 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This evidence-less (zero
    WP:ABAN for some reason, seems like a non-starter. Probably should be summarily closed. El_C 20:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hi El_C, I will appreciate your eyes on this. Have been trying to implement CaptainEek's proposed version of this section made during moderation, as the discussion has gone dormant due to lack of engagement. The verbatim version of that proposal, and attempts to reword in various ways to address what IP says are their concerns and incorporate IP's contributions into the lead, have been met with blanket reversions to their own interpretation of the primary source. The post here is I think an attempt at "revenge" after their behaviour was reported at 3RR. Cambial foliage❧ 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The link reported at 3RR Cambial Yellowing would like to bring your attention to would be a good place to look before making your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the current discussion on the article talk page is a typical example of the editor's style of never reaching consensus through arguments that are patently false to anyone who cares to investigate. [[256]] 146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1010877251"