Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068

Since they joined about a month ago,

One of their few edits into mainspace was this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M1_Garand&diff=prev&oldid=1022467104&diffmode=source, which shares most of the same problems: OR, where they mention how certain things "might have been better", and "probably did not happen". After I reverted this edit, they took it my talk page, and asked me if I knew about the Garand ping myth, and once I said yes (but not actually prompting them to talk about it), they gave me another OR wall of text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loafiewa&diff=prev&oldid=1022991563&diffmode=source

There are also signs of

Can I contribute to this discussion?Blamazon (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Put forward your response. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. First, I want to point out that I agree that talk pages are not forums. I want to learn and I want to follow the rules.

On Loafiewa's talk page, I arrogantly said that I have not edited any talk sections that have been officially closed. And I said that I thought it was weird that I was being called out for my edits because a large portion of wikipedia talk pages are not about the article itself. In retrospect, I admit I shouldn't have said this because I was bit aggravated about Loafiewa reverting so many of my edits. I felt like I was being targeted and my mood reflected in my posts.

Second, I am not a long time user. Loafiewa said at the beginning that I joined about a month ago. That said, I don't know much about wikipedia's rules. And I am not trying to break them.

I want to use the talk pages for their intended purpose. And I also want to answer the questions that people post on talk pages. But most of all, I want to learn. If there is something I can do to be a better user, I would like to know.Blamazon (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages should only be used to discuss edits or potential edits to the article. If someone, in contravention of that, posts a general discussion point on the topic, it doesn’t mean you should answer. They should be reverted per

WP:NOTFORUM. If they are not reverted it still doesn’t mean that you should engage. DeCausa (talk

) 22:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Should I delete/revert content(made by me and other users) on talk pages that is not related to editing the article?Blamazon (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Blamazon, meh. I just reverted some stuff on Talk:Panzerfaust, but it's not a huge deal. We're more concerned, I think, with whether you understand what all this was about, and it seems to me that you do. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand what I did wrong and I am doing my best to improve.Blamazon (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Averybenedictxezonaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to fake their unblock request being accepted. See [20]. AIV doesn't seem like the right place to report an indeffed vandal, so I'm taking this to the dramaboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudhhr (talk • contribs) 21:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Avery has not been unblocked. An admin was considering unblocking them. Apparently they now want to leave Wikipedia and are saying that the vandalism was done by their son.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Well they've been CU blocked as a sockmaster, so it probably wasn't their son doing it. dudhhr_@ 00:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The user User:Casprings has multiple Barnstars on his page, supposedly awarded by a former Wikipedia Foundation staff, another quite active user, and two indefinitely blocked sock puppeteers. The Barnstars are a template (User:Casprings/Appreciation) that has only been edited by the user itself. Therefore, from what I know, that is impersonation and probably sockpuppetry. Don't know the exact rules (sorry about that) but wanted to report it. Andibrema (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not sock-puppetry. Oftentimes these are placed on a talk page and moved to a permanent location by the recipient, but I have better things to do than care enough to investigate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's quite clear from the talk archives that, barring some odd game with fake archives (can't be ruled out for manual archiving, but fails Occam's razor), these are authentic. Vaticidalprophet 18:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No reason to worry about talk page archives, just check the contribution history. The barnstars are authentic [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. As per 力, I think most barnstars are given on talk pages since unless an editor has specifically said it's okay, it's presumptious to add a barnstar to an editor's user page, as in most cases only the editor themselves should edit them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In case it reinforces the suspicion, or makes you want to investigate the case, he also blanked/replaced the entire Wikipedia:Requested moves page at some point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1002444656 Andibrema (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• 123FactCheck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daiaespera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amar Singh (activist)

I want to report two users who are constantly vandalising the article by deleting its content and refs. 123FactCheck, who only edited Amar Singh's article, is bent on deleting or altering text related to the Harvard University [27][28][29] and replaced a whole paragraph with his own, adding biased and unbalanced material that violate our neutral policy on BLP[4][7]

A few days later another user named Daiaespera showed up, first edited a few random articles instead of directly editing

1. Removed the subject's official website link from the "external links section" stating "this is a business website not an official website".[6]
2. Here they added "Amar attended the Harvard University although left without taking a degree" which 123FactCheck also wanted to add. , they also removed two references
3. here they deleted a whole paragraph from career heading with an edit summary "Ancestor could mean anything, clarity and reliable sources required" despite the fact that there were 3 references provided for anyone to verify that. the Gay Times and VanityFair clearly speaks about his ancestors "Singh finds inspiration from his family, which is steeped in a history of fighting for equality. His grandmother Veena Singh, who died in 2017, championed women’s rights during the British rule in India and was an ally of the county’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Singh’s ancestor, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, set up India’s first women’s education fund, was India’s first health minister and campaigned for equality alongside Mahatma Gandhi."
4. here they changed from "Founder of Amar Singh Gallery" to "Art gallerist" with an edit summary "more neutral tone" i don't see how this makes the article promotional that they toned it down. I guess they did not want Amar Singh Gallery to reflect anywhere on the top. this is a deceptive edit summary.
5. here they deleted two lines from career and personal life without adequately explaining why. "family" is their edit summary.
6. here they deleted a line from personal life heading and several references "Singh is a direct descendant of Sikh ruler Raja Nihal Singh, who was opposed to colonialism and helped the Lahore forces against the British in the First Anglo-Sikh War" which was reinstated by an extended user. But they did not listen to him/her and again removed it. while Its clearly stated in the VanityFair article "Singh is a direct descendent of India’s Sikh ruler Maharajah Nihal Singh of Kapurthala, who opposed colonialism and helped the Lahore forces against the British in the First Anglo-Sikh War."
7. here they cut pasted a line from personal life heading and inserted in the introductory paragraph and deleted several sources, non constructive edits .
8. here they deleted the line "Singh’s uncle Vishvjit Singh was an Indian politician with the Indian National Congress Party" from personal life heading with an edit summary "not an uncle" while its right there in the losangelesblade article "Singh’s father’s brother, Kanwar Vishvjit Prithvijit Singh, “a chief minister and a great politician in India who was also dedicate to ameliorating the country,"
9. here they finally took down the personal life heading and stated "Source was an interview with Mr Singh in the Gay Times, not a reliable third party reference" in the edit summary - DOesn't the Wikipedia guideline say that Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content? the gay times is not a primary source first of all and his ancestry details are not directly provided by him, an unreasonable excuse to delete a cited material.
10. here they set a citation needed notice at the top of the article, despite the fact that the article was entirely referenced, see the diff.
11. here they deleted the "Art gallerist" from the box on the right side as well as the lead section, and also removed the line "He is the founder of Amar Gallery" from the first paragraph with an edit summary "the gallery seems to have closed down" Look at the point #4, they did not want Amar Singh Gallery anywhere at the top, so it could not reflect in the Google knowledge graph, that's what i concluded. I reinstated that and left two warnings in the hope that they would cease, but they did not and deleted those texts again - if one of his London galleries is closed up, does it mean that he isn't the founder and give them the right to edit it out of the article? clearly a disruptive conduct
12. here they added The Penton Street gallery closed in April 2019 citing a pdf doc, that can only be produced by someone knows the subject very well and trying to discredit him. an editor like us will never be able to find such links online.
13. here they added an unreliable reference. They deleted many of my references claiming they were not reliable, and they can add whatever they want to.
14. here After taking down the whole personal life heading content, they created subject's family tree citing poor/unreliable source. It reeks of someone trying to push their agenda and even discredit.
15. here they deleted a line, providing no proof for their claim
16. here they brought it out to afd at once as i reverted their edits
17. they have made many such unnecessary, non constructive edits and vandalism edits.

I warned Daiaespera twice and urged to bring it out to talk page to seek community consensus if they had concerns but to no avail. they rather brought it to afd. I do not see a policy based argument, no editor chimed in on deletion yet, reading their afd remarks sound as if a desperate attempt to change the content the way they wish to. A glance at their edit history and the amount of edits made on Amar's page by Daiaespera evidently uncovers their real purposes and can confidently say that they are not around to contribute to this encyclopedia but to push their personal agenda. There is a sock investigation opened against me at [30].I deny having a connection with Editorworldwide14 & 123FactCheck in which its stated "123FactCheck has came to the defense of me".they havenot sprung to my defense but to raise concerns over my edits on the Harvard Univerity. In fact, previously we two had had an edit war. They dont belong to me. As for Editorworldwide14, I was aware of the afd discussion from day 1 but didn't want to get involved into it and chose to leave it to community to take a call. Why would i create an additional account when i can use my own for making comments?

123FactCheck and Daiaespera, they both look very suspicious to meSk1728 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think any of my edits constitute disruption or vandalism.
  Amar Singh (activist), have flagged issues on its talk page, and raised the question as to whether the article in its current state should be deleted or not, but have come under fire for this by Sk1728 and Editorworldwide14. My issues with the article in question are laid out in the AFD. I have no connection to 123FactCheck who also raised issues with the article. Daiaespera (talk
  ) 19:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Individual IPs:

• 46.97.170.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Range:

• 46.97.170.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78

• BLPN Discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano

User appears to be here for the sole purpose of bludgeoning, picking fights and pushing a particular POV.

• "it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments"[31]
• "There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts."[32]
• "look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. "[33]
• "This is what I meant when I said that Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same."[34]
• "Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable."[35]
• "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is."[36]
• "Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany"[37]
• "The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that."[38]
• "We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags."[39] (He is talking about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• "I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology."[40]
• "The first paragraph of the section is nothing but right wing pundits flapping their mouths and spouting right wing punditry, and should be deleted entirely."[41]

Also:

• Deleting other user's talk page comments.[42] (The deleted comment was right-wing stupidity, but no worse than what 46.97.170.0/24 regularly posts.)
• Removing sources because "they are agenda driven"[43]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Two things before I address the broader issue: Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control, so there's no point leaving a notification on one I'm no longer using - it's not likely I will be assigned that particular IP again. Second, I find the last two claims to be unfair. The talk page in question has had several similar comments removed by other users, on the grounds that they are off topic and have nothing to do with the subject. I apologize if I got the wrong impression that this is standard practice. Regarding the sources I removed from How_to_Be_an_Antiracist, other contributors CONFIRMED that I had the right idea. You can read it on the talk page.

The vast majority of problem lines, quite honestly confuse me. I tried to avoid picking fights ever since last year's incidents. I'd be the first to admit fault if it turns out I wasn't always entirely successful in that regard, but many of my lines presented here don't seem to make sense. My comment on the Gina Carano talk page, regarding her holocaust comments expecially strikes me as out of place, because it's just a near word for word reference to content from the article itself. Some of the stronger opinions are no worse than what registered contributors, including some admins have said. I've read essays on wikipedia that use stronger language. The last ANI report was most certainly justified, seeing as I made baseless accusations of vandalism, and made some rather inappropriate comments. The only thing presented here that comes anywhere near that, when looket at in context, appears to be my comments on the Post-Gazette, which, looking back, definitely feels like something I should not have said. Maybe the trump comment too - that's was a pointless tangent, and the Ben Shapiro one is definitely a BLP violation. I'm going to redact these immediately. There's also that long off-topic argument on Jordan Peterson's talk page, that carried on far too long, but I was not the sole responsible party there, and it was not my intention to go off topic.

That's three comments, that are inappropriate, maybe two where I used harsher language than I should have, and one that was probably put here by mistake, because it's a sentence fragment from the article - not my words. I'm not seeing the problem with the rest, however. I wasn't trying to pick fights. I received two warnings in april which I tried to discuss and clarify, but unfortunately I didn't get any responses. Still, it is true that wikipedia isn't a forum, and some of the discussions I involved myself in, did unfortunately go in that direction, which was not my intent. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my opinion, even if you are unfailingly polite towards other users, expressing your POV with phrases like "far right grifter", "trump bootlicker", "the same cancer that's destroying modern society" and "nearly destroyed the country" shows me that you are more interested in promoting your political ideology than in building an encyclopedia. I am actually sympathetic because I shore many of your opinions about certain recent politicians, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself because they are out of place here.

The other problem I see is

WP:BLUDGEON

ING. You don't just express your political opinions. You keep expressing your political opinions again and again even when it has become clear that the consensus is against you. What I am not seeing is any hint of compromise or cooperation.

In my opinion, you should be topic banned from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The unregistered editor wrote: "Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control". No. That is under your control, in that you can register an account. It is only outside your control if you insist on not registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is.[44]

Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame. [45] redacted by another editor

Link to open BLP/N thread

I've only had extensive experience with this editor on the Gina Carano article, and in general it hasn't been very pleasant. They have no issue with making BLP violating comments on the talk page, or accusing editors of having an agenda. The two quotes above give, I think, a reasonable distillation of what discussions with them are like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching this IP editor for a month or so (since they joined the Peterson article). I raised a concern with their talk page comments on their talk page here [[46]]. I share Guy Macon's concerns. I do think it is a positive sign that they have, after posting here, started removing some of their offending comments (example [[47]]). I also will say I don't see disruption of the article's themselves, just frustrating talk page behavior. My feeling is they are on a fence. If they recognize the issue and are willing to fix the problem I think any additional sanctions would be punitive. However, if they continue I would support some type of Tban. It might have to be an IP range block due to the lack of a named account. It also would be good if they created an account. The combination of aggressive comments and shifting IPs is a problem. Several of the talk pages have similar warnings. Springee (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• As with Springee above, I am willing to grant a very short length of
  WP:ROPE given that the user in question appears to be willing to redact their earlier offensive comments and commit to being better behaved moving forward. I'd have considered a ban had they not just done so, and would be willing to consider a formal ban of some sort if the shenanigans continue, however. --Jayron32
  17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• My initial tendency on this one was to also go for a warning given my assumption this was a new editor and WP is a different environment than most others. However, I'm not sure I agree anymore. Now that I've seen this behavior has gone on for a while and only seems to change when ANI gets involved. I would recommend reading the previous incident report and noting that IP was already on a short rope. I might also be a bit more supportive if the user was making constructive edits otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. This feels very much like a user who wants a forum and to POV push and thinks they can walk the line on behavior, backing off just shy of getting banned. I'd recommend a Tban as well, but can support a warning if we think that is more prudent. Just a note to future ANI administrators in case this comes up again. Squatch347 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the earlier ANI, I'm going to suggest a short rope strategy that might not be technically possible. I would suggest range blocking the IP but offering the option to create an account that isn't blocked (is that possible?). If they mess up the account gets blocked and future IP edits can be blocked per EVADE. However, they still have ROPE so they can show that they were listening. Springee (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks
  WP:BLP/N. They eerily remind me of the sock who was harassing me when I first started editing. The IP has been warned more than enough times from plenty of experienced editors, so I don't think offering them anymore chances will do any good. I included some additional diffs in case anyone wants to take a peak. Dr. Swag Lord (talk
  ) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

1. The promises given in the previous ANI report and the rope they were given at that time.
2. Their heartfelt belief that anything other than demonizing any person and any source that shows the slightest trace of conservatism is a NPOV violation that must be fought tooth and nail no matter what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree with Guy Macon here. They were given a chance in the previous AN/I thread and they've gone right back to the behaviour that got them reported in the first place. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I am going to try and address as much of this as possible. I will say this first, I don't have any objections to a topic ban if it's decided that's necessary. The arguments for it do sound convincing. That being said, some of the claims here appear unfair to me.

• To start off, many of the offending comments being brought up here, are from last year, and have already been a subject of an ANI. I have admitted to wrongdoing then, redacted many of the offending comments, and refrained from further activity on the site for the rest of the year. The comments I made then included actual potentially libellous statements on BLP subjects, personal attacks on other users, including unfair accusations of vandalism, and a couple of minor edits that could be considered vandalism. I do not think any of my recent comments are of that nature, or even close. I have tried to refrain from that behavior, keeping last year's ANI in mind. I don't see the point in bringing those up again.
• Some of the specific accusations are simply wrong. I have been accused multiple times of calling Coleman Hughes an "alt right grifter", which I did not do. And due to unfortunate wording, my comment to clarify that I was referring to Ben Shapiro, not Hughes, was just used to incriminate me further. Dr Swag Lord brings that point up against me in the above BLP Noticeboard discussion (of which I received no notification for some reason), along with the claim that I also called Jordan Peterson a "nazi supervillain", which is also not true, as was pointed out to him. He began bringing up last years incidents after he and several others with BLP violation complaints against me were told that they don't have a strong case against me. He also seems to suspect me of being someone he had a previous conflict with - I don't know what the basis of this assumption is.
• On the Jordan Peterson talk page, aside from the one comment I redacted, the only real objectionable thing I did is getting involved in a long thread derailment, when another user tried to debate the contents of two sources, arguing that they were using guilt by association. I understand that wikipedia is not a forum, and I shouldn't have gotten into that argument as far as I did, but I was not the sole responsible party.
• The assessment that I find anything less than demonization of anyone even remotely associated with conservatism to be NPOV, and that I fight tooth and nail against consensus, strikes me as unfair. Especially seeing as my comments on the Thomas Sowell article seem to be the impetus - correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that my choice of words was far from neutral, but to say I was fighting tooth and nail against consensus, so the article would demonize the subject is an exxagerration. Thomas Sowell is a controversial figure, but his article doesn't reflect that at all. I have also argued that over a quarter of sources are primary and come from the subject himself. If I'm wrong about that, that's due to me misinterpreting
  WP:ABOUTSELF
  , not the desire to "demonize".
• Similarly, on the Gina Carano talk page, where I've been the most active, and where the "tooth and nail" remark does apply, I wasn't fighting for the demonization of the subject but over the inclusion of information that was already in the existing sources. I objected to the use of a specific wording, which is only used by one source, and asked for the inclusion of relevant information that was in multiple sources, and was previously part of the article. The only comments I made about on the subject herself, had to do with her notability, and the relative notability of the social media controversy. My comments about users "pushing an agenda" was referring to contributors supporting the exclusion of information based on their own personal interpretation of primary sources, rather than what reliable sources say. This has been already covered in the BLP noticeboard discussion above. Morbidthoughts made correct observations about my comments without me having to defend myself, so I don't see why ScottishFinnishRaddish keep insisting that my only goal is to throw insults.
• Regarding Squatch347's comments I think it's fair to point out that I have made constructive edits in the past. I know I used a lot of politically charged language, and sometimes go off into unnecessary tangents when giving my reasoning but a lot of the content I have removed have been justified. On How to Be and Antiracist, the consensus was ultimately on my side, and multiple attempts to restore my deletions have been reverted by registered users. I also nominated the article on Dan Fraga for deletion due to the self-promotional nature of it. I had a rather long and exhausting dispute on the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials regarding the reliablility of some of the sources in the "academic commentary" section. I'm also involved in the discussion on the talk page of the upcoming The Little Mermaid film, regarding an alleged casting controversy, which I don't believe is notable enough to warrant mentioning. I also removed a guilt by association claim from Ibram X. Kendi and warned of incoming vandalism on that article and on Heidi Heitkamp. I know this is overshadowed by my annoying habit of getting into unnecessarily long arguments and using language that is oftentimes unwarranted, I just felt the need to point out that I did make constructive edits.

Now, this is mostly my response to the nature of the claims made against me, not really to the core issue (i.e. frustrating talk page behavior), which I don't dispute. Like I said, if a topic ban is found to be appropriate, I'm not going to object to it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where I've said your only goal is to throw insults. Do you have a diff or two of that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. from the BLPN discussion. It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Notice that the words "racist" and "bootlicker" are in quotation marks. Those are not my words, those are from comments made about the subject as reported by the sources. My argument was that she was being criticised rather than bullied. I was trying to argue for the same wording I brought up again recently but I ended up dropping it because not enough sources justify it. In the case of many other comments I made about Gina Carano personally, I was arguing about how much coverage the controversy should receive in proportion to the rest of the article. I do admit some of it did sound insulting, and not at all neutral, but Morbidthoughts managed to get my intentions without me having to say a single word. Anyway, I'll probably be out for the weekend. I'll see what the decision is when I get back. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers.[63] was the diff I linked, which I was commenting on. You yourself said that the sources didn't touch on it and that she was not noteworthy for her political beliefs, then called her beliefs insane. I would say that that specific diff that I was describing was not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support the inclusion and that you were complaining about and insulting a BLP. It also wasn't a comment that your only goal was to throw insults, and to say so is disingenuous as there was clearly a diff attached. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. I can see why people would misunderstand that comment, but that wasn't referring to the controversy. It was referring specifically to her ties to Comicsgate, which indeed isn't covered by reliable sources. In the first couple of months when this was fresh news, I was expecting some kind of expose from the media, but it never happened. Point is, I was talking about an issue not directly related to the controversy as it was covered by reliable sources. So I wasn't admitting that the things I was arguing for weren't covered by reliable sources, I was talking about something else that I was initially hoping for eventually being included not being covered by reliable sources, if that makes sense. I know it's not obvious, and my wording certainly didn't help. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem, 46.97, is the use of rhetoric such as "as insane and nonsensical as they are" and "far right echo chamber". Your statement without those portions, The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs to be of any relevance. would have been a sufficient comment on the situation; the pejorative and disdainful rhetoric is actually distracting from what was otherwise a cogent and good point, and many people (including those of us who, in a less formal setting than Wikipedia like at a bar enjoying a few beverages together, would likely agree with your analysis) find such asides to be rude and distracting. Regardless of our opinions on the politics of others (such as other users, or the people of subjects we are writing about on Wikipedia and discussing), we're still expected to maintain a level of decorum and grant those people (and those around us) a certain level of dignity. Comments like "insane and nonsensical" have no place in such discussions at Wikipedia, and people tire of them when you keep using rhetoric like that. THAT is the crux of the problem. --Jayron32 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A relevant comment[64] from User:Nil Einne from the last time ANI was ashed to deal with this:

"Needing to be brought to ANI before you recognise your fault is often not a good sign. Of course it does depend on what attempts were made to discuss this with first so I checked out your talk page and found [65] where you already agreed you got carried away. Which would be great if you hadn't caused major issues since then. But the unsupported wikipedia vandal claim is after that acknowledgement [66] and as Pudeo said you got challenged yet doubled down once [67]. The best solution by far would be if this doesn't happen again. If you keep finding yourself getting carried away or irrational, you need to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve problem edits and then fixing them when people complain enough. Either take a break before posting, or stop editing in the subject areas where you're finding it difficult to control yourself."

I don't think we can trust any further promises from 46.97.170.0/24 to stop the objectionable behavior and I do not believe that at this time 46.97.170.0/24 has the ability to contribute productively in the area of post-1992 politics of the United States. I say we should impose a topic ban and invite them to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer to appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I tend to agree with you, especially after seeing the attempts already made to address the issue with them and their responses above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

One final thought (written for the average editor: admins know all of this already); we traditionally only block IPs for shortish periods because the ISP could assign the IP to someone else tomorrow. Blocks from editing certain pages can be longer; the odds of that second person using the same IP not only editing Wikipedia but editing the same page are very small. But in this case I am thinking that no actual block is needed. Just tell 46.97.170.0/24 that they are topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States broadly construed, give them a clear explanation of what Wikipedia:Broadly construed means, and I think they will obey the restriction. This will also give them a good argument when and if they later request that the topic ban be lifted: "I spent X months without a topic ban violation". The ultimate goal is not to stop people from editing. The ultimate goal is to convert them to productive and valuable editors. Back in 2006 I was an extremely disruptive IP editor, but when a veteran editor calmly explained to me how Wikipedia is different from your average social media website, I learned how to be a good editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest including a BLP tban just in case. I also think if they agree to create an account we should give them a very small amount of rope. I would hope that Jayron32 (talk · contribs)'s later post was sufficient to illustrate the sort of talk page comments that are not helpful. Springee (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Have they ever caused any disruption on BLP pages or talk pages not related to post-1992 politics of the United States? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Most disruption has been focused on

Jacob Gardner[72]. Joe Rogan may fall under AP2, but I don't think the other ones do. Dr. Swag Lord (talk

) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You make a strong case. That Mark Waid edit, for example, was a serious BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that they have caught the

WP:ANIFLU. Note to self: if you ever get into trouble at ANI just stop editing. It doesn't always work, but it often leads to the report being archived or closed with a "no recent activity" comment. Further note to self: Do not immediately restart the behavior. People notice that sort of thing. Either start misbehaving on a new page or wait a couple of months before starting up again on the same page.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk

) 13:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It is unlikely that further discussion will change the result of this discussion. May we have an uninvolved administrator evaluate the consensus, write up a summary, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we entertained the IP editor long enough. If someone calls a leading First Amendment scholar "a right wing hack" and so on, the editor is either trolling or incompetent to edit BLPs. Or at least the area of American Politics. Ban them and let them appeal if they learn to adhere to core policies and guidelines.

Politrukki (talk

) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) ---Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that there's little energy to close this because there's little in the way of any actionable proposals. Other than a few large walls of text between the primary complainant (yourself) and the defense made by 46.97... there isn't much in the way of a firm way forward. Some people have proposed a few half-hearted hints at sanction ideas, but it is difficult for an admin to enact any sanctions based on such vagaries and any lack of clear consensus among the uninvolved. If you want this resolved in some sort of active sanction, you're going to need to call the question and propose a concise, concrete way forward. --Jayron32 15:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My concrete proposal: A community-imposed topic ban from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed, with the usual invitation to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer of allowing an appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. I recommend no block or partial block at this time; let's see if they abide by the TB voluntarily.

Dr.Swag Lord thinks the TB should be extended to all BLPs. I say we wait on that and see if there is a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Guy Macon's proposal (see my initial post for details). This would remove the topics that have cause the most problems for the IP and still all them to edit Wiki in other areas and, perhaps, pick up the norms. Squatch347 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the proposal, would also support the BLP topic ban as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the proposal Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reviewing the diffs shows that the ip holds strong opinions about the subjects in discussions about content choice allowable under
  WP:BLPTALK. I do not see the disruption here as I expect the community to have stronger tolerance and expectations that contentious subjects yield contentious opinions. BLP should not be used as a sword to hush these opinions because editors think they amount to IDONTLIKE and ILIKEIT rationales. We've shown great tolerance for other users who hold less than noble opinions in deletion discussions. I don't see how this should be any different. Morbidthoughts (talk
  ) 05:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  Seriously? You actually think that "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is" and "Like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society" are allowed under BLPTALK? How do you explain the fact that 46.97.170.0/24 freely admitted that their comments violated our policies and retracted them? (46.97.170.0/24 does that every time they are reported an ANI and then go right back to the same behavior once the report is archived, but it is still an admission that they understand that what they are doing is not allowed.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The Shapiro comment was in context of whether his opinions were

WP:DUE (responding to an editor who commented on misogyny and nationalism from Peterson), qualifying BLPTALK.(See [73][74][75]) The ip's previous admissions only means they got heated and are willing to defer or yield to consensus; something again they have shown here. Let me ask how have these comments been disruptive to move for sanctions? Have they somehow improperly made to article space, improperly sway article discussion on what has gone into article space, or enraged other editors to the point of disruptive bludgeoning that distract from the actual content issue? You all are better than that. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 20:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: "how have these comments been disruptive?" please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano, and the other comments in this section. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Which door were you picking? You cited personal attacks from almost a year ago, which is different than what is brought up here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The most recent edits by 46.97.170.0/24 are to reasonably comment here and to remove some of their screeds. If similar recurs, please let me know and I will issue escalating blocks for the range. @Morbidthoughts: You're wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  You will have to be more specific. The very first sentence of

  WP:SUPERVOTE? Morbidthoughts (talk

  ) 07:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Morbidthoughts, I think it's discretionary sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I've modified the above comment indentation to comply with

  WP:Accessibility. Anyway I've purposely avoided getting involved in this but FWIW I agree with most others than the IP's comments, as apparently even they agree, go beyond the limits of BLPTALK. Editors are free to have whatever personal opinions they want of subjects, but they need to take care to ensure their comments actually relate to improving Wikipedia when they touch on subjects. If there is a way to make the point without commenting on a subject, they should do so. Continued failure to do so is likely a problem. It generally doesn't even matter how many people share that point of view. While it's reasonable to have some leeway especially for extremely notable people e.g. I think it's rare comments on Donald Trump or Jo Biden or Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama or for that matter Jacinda Ardern or John Key at least from a BLP standpoint (other issues may cause concern though) if enough editors express concern that an editor is persistently crossing the line then they need to take this feedback on board. An editor can think subject X is an irrelevant nobody as much as they want. It's largely irrelevant to us. What matters are reliable sources and reliable source coverage. Notably from what I saw most or all of the examples did not involved material directly sourced to the subjects concerned, so their alleged unreliability was not that germane to the discussion. Nil Einne (talk

  ) 15:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I just want to see this closed one way or the other. I am fine with a "no action required, user cautioned" close. The worse that could happen is that we end up here again in a few weeks. What I really want to do is unwatch this page. Having it on my watch list tempts me to post here, and apparently there is an unwritten rule that if you ever want to run for RfA you are required to show zero interest in AN, ANI, AE, or Jimbotalk. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)