Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049

Exeedingly long block + false accusations
This is on the Swedish Wikipedia, Ternarius and EstrellaSuecia blocks me for off-topic chat on userpages. I'm new and didn't understand that.

Then i wrote one bad thing on Ternarius user page about their arttitude, i know it wasn't nice but (s)he provoked me.

As punishment, they not only blocked me for a while (which would be ok i guess) but also reverted by constructive and helpful edits on other articles.

For example here: And here:

I hope we will come to a resolution.

Regards

BertNorman

BertNorman (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello BertNorman, as this is an issue on the Swedish Wikipedia, we on the English Wikipedia have no rights to make any admin changes there. You will need to take the matter up there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * For your information: BertNorman admited to being intoxicated during the affair, which was obvious from his many edits. The "constructive and helpful edit" removed from the latter of his examples was an instruction how to clean your forskin(!). / Ternarius (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming the Swedish Wikipedia has rules similar to WP:NOTHOW the removals were clearly justified.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See sv:Wikipedia:Vad Wikipedia inte är. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, i didn't know about that rule about having too much information, i also saw the info i was adding was in a sub-article too, i didn't notice thta and apologize. The thing about the Swedish right wing/far-right tabloid and they being pro-lockdown was however a constructive and helpful edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertNorman (talk • contribs) 22:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry i don't know how to make proper replies here

BertNorman (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah? You changed the word "Estonian" to "Ethnical" and slipped it into a wikilink. Surely that was not a mistake.


 * I really didn't want to respond to this at all, since I believe this user is just trolling and I'm pretty sure I'm just feeding the troll here. However, as a new admin, I do feel the need to explain my perspective.


 * So the backstory here is two nights ago, I blocked an IP-vandal, and after that the same person kept coming back with new IP-adresses (open proxies) to harass me, Ternarius and others. One night later, another IP-adress (open proxy) from the same Swedish VPN-service (OVPN, whois 1, 2, 3, 4) asks Ternarius a vulgar question about gender on Ternarius's discussion. I blocked the IP and reported the proxy on Meta. Then comes User:BertNorman, whos first edit on Wikipedia is a comment on my discussion page, asking "None of your rules prevents one from asking questions about gender, age etc on their discussion page?".


 * Now this is all a little too conventient in my opinion, and very much in line with what a troll would do. And if that proof wasn't enough, Bert Norman was also vandalizing (Estonian -> Ethnical, the childish nonsense about cleaning foreskin) and the mean comment to Ternarius was just the icing on the cake.


 * So there you have it, hopefully that clears this up. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was drunk, i thought the article meant ethnical as in ethnical nationalist. You know the Swedish word "etniskt" kan mean like "etnisk nationalist".

I am currently in a location with censored internet (pretty lightly but still). I actually got into the idea with creating an account because my grandchild called me the other day and told me he was planning to try his hand out and look for spelling errors on Wikipedia and just try it out generally. But then got banned for asking about gender (he's autistic) and had a tantrum and said some bad things. I don't wanna concern myself with him in that case, i think he maybe is a bit immature, so i don't wanna concern myself with your decision to ban him.


 * Regarding that VPN service, my son recommended it and even let me use his account. He has his whole family behind a VPN router to protect their privacy (especially of the their kids). He is an IT guy and really good with computers.


 * But i can absolutely pay for my own VPN account if you mixed me up with his family due to us sharing VPN accounts. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.


 * Regarding my behavior a night ago, well i understand if the stuff i said on talk pages makes you wanna block me for a while. I understand that.


 * I don't however understand the reason behind permanent block with the accusation i am just here to destroy the site. That is simply not true

Kind regards Bert Norman BertNorman (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

My formatting was really messed up, fixing it and trying again.

BertNorman (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Trying yet again, hope the formatting this time or i will just let it be i guess.

BertNorman (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Based on your contributions at time of block one would assume you were here to destroy. Your story really does not sound that convincing to me but in any case:


 * The account you are using now is permanently blocked and will stay blocked. However you can register a new username after a certain time has passed. I'm not sure on the exact timeframe, but I think it's just a couple of days. If you do want to contribute with serious edits to Wikipedia you are free to register a new account when that time has passed. However, you can not use a VPN service. No open proxies is a Wikimedia policy and applies to every Wikipedia edition. VPN-services use open proxies, and therefore they are not allowed.


 * This is the last thing I will say in this matter, I will not answer you again. Good luck. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to just close this whole thing since I don't understand what any of it has to do with the English Wikipedia. However I felt I should correct a misleading claim in this latest comment. There is no Wikimedia policy forbidding the use of open proxies. Instead, because they are vulnerable to abuse, they will be blocked. This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but the difference does matter. Editing from an open proxy is not automatically a violation of some Wikimedia policy. The proxy is likely to be blocked once it is identified, but the editor hasn't done anything wrong just by using it. They've only done something wrong if there is something wrong with their edit. For example, if it's a violation of some other policy or guideline, such as policies against editing when you as an editor have been blocked or banned (block circumvention or sockpuppetry). Individual projects may have a stronger policy than the Wikimedia one, so you may need to consider that separately. In addition it also means, editors with an account who have good reason to need to edit from a VPN can do so. They need to request IP block exemption providing an adequate reason why it's needed and convince who they ask that they won't abuse it. This can generally be done locally or globally, although I have no idea the Swedish Wikipedia policy on this. All this is explained on the page linked above. If you've already abused open proxies such as to continually harass someone, you're not going to be granted an exemption; but that's different from whether it's possible in a different case. BTW, as an example why local policy matters, and why this shouldn't really be discussed on the English Wikipedia, here on the English Wikipedia, if your account has been blocked it's often better than ask for an unblock rather than just create a new account, even if your previous edits were all unconstructive. Especially if it's only 2 days later. There are cases like where your account was blocked for a username violation where it's different, but generally creating a new account when your previous one was blocked is more likely to get you into trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking we don't have enough complaining about blocks here and like magic, Swedish Wikipedia fills the void., I'm thinking this might be a good thread for the ANI Hall of Fame: a complaint about a block on Swedish Wikipedia that was the result of intoxicated editing about instructions on how to clean your foreskin.Hopefully someone closes this before I get into trouble.  // Timothy ::  talk  05:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, um, I'm sorry, it's just... Swedish foreskin cleaning is above my paygrade. I don't have enough training hours logged yet to get the necessary clearances for that level of humor. I'll have to call in for this one. Lev!vich 05:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You pinged me out of bed for this?, you disappoint me. You can drag the tone of the conversation down several notches using the unfortunate conjunction of the phrases cleaning foreskin and icing on the cake alone. Now get to work or you're not going to like your next quarterly review, I can tell you that. I'm tired of holding your hand. Plus I don't know where it's been. EEng 07:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

For -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 21:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that depends. Which hand? Lev!vich 07:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some doors man was never meant to open. EEng 07:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Highly disruptive /28 range?
Is there anything that can be done about blocking a /28 range? Not sure as a lookup of a /28 range on Wikipedia tell that, "The requested IP range is larger than the CIDR limit of /32."

IP range has been super disruptive, persisting at articles such as Ollie's Pack, Lego City Adventures, and Looped (TV series) for months on end- and I'm sure many others- with no end in sight. Just take a look at the full history of Ollie's Pack here and do a search of "2804:d49", has been at that article since May and continues to this day.

Just a few of the IPs include:

...and plenty more than just those three. According to the WHOIS, it seems like the main source would either be 2804:d49::/28 or 2804:d40::/28. I tried using the rangeblock calculator for these three IPs, and it gave me '2804:D49:4915:AA00:F82A:1BDC:4D42:5D4C/42', so maybe that could be the source? Either way, is there anything that can be done about this easily, or would this need to be tackled by blocking quite a few ranges? Would love to put a stop to this, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The /32 v6 block limit is a santity check, because blocks larger than /32 generally have unacceptable levels of collateral damage. Your proposed /28 rangeblock would block access for every customer of the third largest ISP in Brazil. I believe this is could be a sock of, and I think a short block on the /42 (whilst still a bit heavy-handed) would stem the abuse until they get bored. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 09:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * So, if you're using a sample of a mere 3 IPs to calculate a potential rangeblock, that suggests the range you should get will be about as narrow as is practically possible. If you're sampling 3 IPs, and the smallest range you can narrow it down to is /42, then that implicates well over four million /64 subnets. And that's just based on three actually-disruptive IPs. That's a huge rangeblock to deal with one editor. If you factor in more IPs, the range will at best stay the same, and at worst grow substantially larger. And you're talking about blocking a /28 range, which involves nearly sixty-nine million /64 subnets. Once the ranges get that big, they're simply no longer a useful piece of data. At that point it becomes clear that disruption is not limited to a narrow range. The point of rangeblocking is to block disruptive IP-hopping individuals without blocking a greater number of constructive individuals. The goal is to prevent disruption without impeding the general public access. If we have to rangeblock, we only want to block the narrowest range possible, to avoid blocking this public access. Even when rangeblocking is indicated, it's only ever executed if the disruption outweighs the good and the neutral, and as a last resort. It's not something that's ever done lightly, no matter how small the range. You're talking about insanely huge ranges that the software will not even allow us to block. It's just not realistic. Having to block a /32 range is an extreme, last resort measure. If a /32 range is overwhelmingly disruptive, we can do so. I've never seen anything that extreme actually done, but it can be done. But when you talk about a /28 range, you're talking about an already-extreme /42 rangeblock, which is presumably the narrowest possible based on those three IPs, multiplied by more than 17. If you have disruption coming from a /28, then the range is simply not relevant. We will block, page protect, and document LTA all day, but rangeblocking thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people from editing, because of the actions of one or two or three IP-hoppers is not something that is ever going to happen. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and Forum-shopping by Buidhe
I will state up front, this is not me looking for an alternative resolution to the ongoing content dispute. This is instead narrowly focused on 's persistent low-grade disruptive editing and their WP:FORUMSHOPping. And I fully expect my conduct to be reviewed as well, as is the norm.

A while back, Buidhe and I began a content dispute and near-edit-war over a paragraph lacking sources at Internment. Buidhe removed it, I reinstated it, they removed it again, I reinstated it with sources, they removed it again, etc.

We went to the Talk page to discuss, which went nowhere. This included Buidhe repeatedly changing indenting style after being asked not to, reversing the wording of a source to claim it says the opposite. They also refused to reinstate the longstanding article text while under discussion, so after a couple days I reverted to the unsourced version from before the dispute, in the interest of fairness. All of this is super-low-level stuff that, individually, does not warrant being here.

When we went to DRN, where our dispute is currently open. The moderator (pinging ) found both suggested versions of the paragraph in question to be factual. Despite this, Buidhe has repeatedly stated the sourced original version failed verifiability: [here], [here] (in referencing "content policies" and describing their own interpretation sources), and [here]. (ADDENDUM: the repeated the claim about lacking facts and verifiability in their RFC !vote, [here].)

While this DRN case is open and ongoing, Buidhe has now engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPping, by starting an RFC at the talk page. In opening the RFC, they didn't use the sourced version of the article to be replaced, as it existed before they removed it during the near-edit war (remember, I reinstated the pre-dispute version for fairness to the process), or as I had provided at the ongoing DRN case. When I tried to update the RFC to reflect the sourced version, they reverted it and part of my talk page comment, claiming the RFC shouldn't be adjusted only hours into it because a couple others had participated. Note however, they themselves adjusted the RFC in response to votes that had already occurred.

Finally, they removed a part of my !vote, claiming it was "discussion", despite it being my own addendum to my own vote and not in response to any other editors.

This has been a long process of slowly-disruptive editing, culminating in forum-shopping and direct edits to talk page comments (in addition to removing parts of a !vote), and so regrettably, at Buidhe's insistence, I have decided to come here. I welcome a thorough look at my own conduct in this matter, because what I want is for a fair process to play out without undue interference.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am disappointed in Buidhe. I have not known them to be this tedious, messing with indent style and erasing other editor's comments. I agree that the behavior is maddening and disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have closed the DRN case as failed. The content dispute will be resolved by the RFC after 30 days if there is no disruption of the RFC.  I haven't looked into the complaint about disruption of the RFC.  A Request for Comments always takes precedence over any other form of content resolution, and any editor has the right to start an RFC at any time.  It is rude to a DRN moderator to start an RFC without first civilly withdrawing from moderated dispute resolution, but that comes with the territory of being a moderator, and any editor has the right to start an RFC.  Any editor also has the right to report the conduct of another editor here.  Survivors can resume discussion on the article talk page, as long as they respect RFC procedures and the second pillar of Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not accurate that I removed part of their vote or edited their comments. RfC survey sections are not for extended discussion, so I moved that to the discussion section.
 * I did not change the indentation of any other user's comments: Pinchme123 changed the indentation of my comments because they did not like it. (and several other cases)
 * I am sure that any of you would be very frustrated if another user repeatedly insisted that their preferred version of content be used, even after it was pointed out that it failed verification and was inconsistent with what is stated in reliable sources.
 * Substantial edits to RfC questions should not be made when an RfC is underway and multiple users had already !voted. I thought that was fairly obvious?
 * Perhaps Pinchme123 is just upset that other users don't support their version at the RfC. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we're here perhaps admins care to examine Pinchme123's WP:OWN attitude at this article, where they recently blanket-reverted the removal of content for failed verification/unsourced reasons as they considered that to be "suspect reasoning". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked every edit:
 * This edit was with the edit comment, "rm non-rs sources, unsourced claims, chronological order;" The supposed non-RS source was The Guardian, listed at WP:RSP as an unambiguous RS and the supposed unsourced claims was the description, "German concentration camps before and during World War II," leading to a WP page about concentration camps in Nazi Germany from before and during WWII. (ADDENDUM) And the moved entry was already in its proper chronological order location, since the list is sorted by date of closure/ending first, then opening/beginning second.
 * This edit was done with an arbitrary recentism cutoff of 20 years for its justification. Perhaps this definition could be established before being used as justification.
 * This edit claimed more "failed verification" and was a removal of sourced entries. Both entries contained multiple RS, all of which supported their inclusion on a page for concentration/internment camps. One of these was also an entry where someone else reverted Buidhe for inappropriately claiming a source didn't support one of the claims, when that source did. This is my mistake and I apologize. Buidhe's edits are starting to blur together.
 * Hardly see how any of this is evidence of ownership. I do however believe saying "other users don't support their version at the RfC" is to imply retaliation and is an aspersion without evidence.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces in whatever newspaper are not reliable sources for anything but the author's opinion.
 * The unsourced claim was actually "US Civil War" on the list of internment camps.
 * The sources need to say that it was a concentration or internment camp, otherwise they fail verification.
 * The entire cause of this pointless dispute is the fact that your attitude makes it extremely tedious and tiresome even to remove blatant misinformation from articles that you watch. Otherwise the entire RfC and dispute resolution would be unnecessary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces in whatever newspaper are not reliable sources for anything but the author's opinion.
 * The unsourced claim was actually "US Civil War" on the list of internment camps.
 * The sources need to say that it was a concentration or internment camp, otherwise they fail verification.
 * The entire cause of this pointless dispute is the fact that your attitude makes it extremely tedious and tiresome even to remove blatant misinformation from articles that you watch. Otherwise the entire RfC and dispute resolution would be unnecessary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources need to say that it was a concentration or internment camp, otherwise they fail verification.
 * The entire cause of this pointless dispute is the fact that your attitude makes it extremely tedious and tiresome even to remove blatant misinformation from articles that you watch. Otherwise the entire RfC and dispute resolution would be unnecessary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The entire cause of this pointless dispute is the fact that your attitude makes it extremely tedious and tiresome even to remove blatant misinformation from articles that you watch. Otherwise the entire RfC and dispute resolution would be unnecessary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the supposed non-RS source, a news item from The Guardian: "Learning from the Germans: how we might atone for America's evils." This article is clearly filed under The Guardian's news section and not their opinion section. I am placing it here for all to see, rather than going around once again about inaccurately-described sources.

I see no good reason to leave "U.S. Civil War" on the list, but I hardly see my single innocent mistake in thinking Buidhe's edit summary also applied to their otherwise-unexplained change to the "German concentration camps" entry as evidence of WP:OWN. I'll leave it to another editor to properly tag "U.S. Civil War" for citation needed, or remove it outright.

The "entire cause" of this content dispute is that editors are not given any opportunity to provide existing sourcing to challenged edits. Frequent claims that content "fails verification" are abound, yet I have yet to see Buidhe use either the "Fails Verification" or "Citation Needed" tags. Given their disruptive talk page editing, that their actions insulted the moderator at DRN who noted above how rude this action was, and their continued removal of strongly-sourced content and Reliable Sources, I think their conduct deserves a second look.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is obviously a book review, not a news article. Book reviews give the author's opinion of the book, therefore they should be considered opinion pieces.
 * 2) I will try to quit this pointless thread, but it is simply completely false that I "insulted the moderator at DRN". I apologize to Robert if he thinks that it is "rude and insulting" to open an RfC when DR is not working, but it is not accurate that I insulted him.
 * 3) The DRN moderator, quite contrary to claims, never said that it is wrong to check sources and state if they do not support the content. That is what "failed verification" means. There is no problem with raising such issues regardless of whether cleanup tags on the article are used. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) The DRN moderator, quite contrary to claims, never said that it is wrong to check sources and state if they do not support the content. That is what "failed verification" means. There is no problem with raising such issues regardless of whether cleanup tags on the article are used. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) The DRN moderator, quite contrary to claims, never said that it is wrong to check sources and state if they do not support the content. That is what "failed verification" means. There is no problem with raising such issues regardless of whether cleanup tags on the article are used. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Unpleasant RFC at Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch
This is a request for administrative attention at

There is an RFC in progress, which was started on 7 September: Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch

I started the RFC in order to try to deal with a content dispute between User:CherryPie94 and User:Lizzydarcy2008 (when it was clear that mediation would not resolve the dispute). In my opinion, both principals are personalizing the dispute, and one of them is bludgeoning the process with walls of text. I had stopped following the RFC until I was pinged by one of the principals, and then another editor has asked for help just because the discussion is too long. I haven't observed any actual incivility, just far too much text. I think that maybe an admin who speaks softly and doesn't use the big stick but keeps it handy might help. It will also need a closer in the second week of October, but that is then and this is now. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, there was no intention to bludgeon the process with walls of text. It will be noted that the "walls of text" were created on both sides and all my arguments were relevant to the discussion. This issue shows the difficulty of combatting a smear campaign where exhaustive research/analysis is needed to sift through bad press. This also needs an admin who is fair, analytical, logical and deeply concerned about Wikipedia being made a tool of a smear campaign. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that this is a minor difference about how a TV series should be described. I don't know who. if anyone, is right here, but can you both please get some sort of sense of perspective? It's not as if the article was about some geopolitical or religious dispute where strong feelings could be expected. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , the series was received badly in Korea and even reliable western media reported it (see 1, 2, 3), and having to "sift through bad press" also proved that it was criticized more than it was praised. "Combatting a smear campaign" is advocacy and is not the job of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's job is reporting, not state opinions. Other users already all voted for the same thing and repeatedly explained to Lizzydarcy2008 that, "if you think that sources, which have been categorized as reliable on WP, are biased and thus can't be used as a source, you need more than just your opinion that there is a conspiracy by detractors to defame the drama, you need other reliable sources that will show that. You cannot just dismiss reliable sources as "detractors" and thus say they can't be used as sources. As I have said before, I understand that you feel that this drama is being treated unjustly, but WP is built on reliable sourcing; you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources."


 * The issue is that Lizzydarcy2008 refuses to "summarize how the drama IS viewed" and instead want to insert her opinion and make the page unneutral and gives undue weight to minority-held view (see previous edits where she removed reliably-sources text for no reason 1, 2, inserted her opinion without any sources 1, and edit warred over a section title she deemed is negative and should not be used as it is "nitpicking" and "a tool for a smear campaign"). Other users and I already told Lizzydarcy2008 that she should not be biased and discredit the majority-held view just because she is a fan and feel like the series should be viewed positively. Nangears explained things better than me on the series' talk page, so reading Nangears replies would explain it much more. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , the reason I am requesting a change in the lede section is to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a tool for a smear campaign. CherryPie94 keeps insisting the reason I am doing this is because I am a fan, immediately tarnishing my credibility and clouding other editors' perception. She refuses to look at facts which are as follows: The series was aired in three ways: (1) through the domestic TV network SBS (2) Netflix (3) Wavve, a streaming service in South Korea. On SBS, the series started with high ratings but competition from Netflix and Wavve, as well as controversies and criticisms, caused the ratings to decline, though it still ended on solid ground. On Netflix, the series was successful, not only in South Korea but also internationally. On Wavve, it consistently topped the charts throughout the eight weeks of airing. So, it is not true that the series was received badly in South Korea. It topped the charts in Netflix South Korea and Wavve. It was only on SBS, and only after the premiere week-end, did the ratings decline, though not as low as it has been painted out to be. CherryPie94's lede section puts the SBS post-premiere low ratings on equal footing as the series' success on Netflix South Korea + Wavve + international market put together, effectively downplaying the latter. The nonequivalence is appalling. I am really tired of this dispute, but one of my goals as an editor is to safeguard Wikipedia's integrity and cannot allow a smear campaign like this to persist. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , u|Lizzydarcy2008 is very biased fans.. what the prove for her arguments Wikipedia is used as a tool for a smear campaign? that's a very serious accusation. I've seen u|Lizzydarcy2008 very biased and the changes she made were very nice for the drama, not neutral at all. i will only remind this once. Be careful  because u|Lizzydarcy2008 seems to be distorting the facts. Just because other people's opinions (votes) did not match her wishes, she called it a smear campaign. TheUntamedTVSeries 00:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I just realized why and now  are accusing me of being a biased fan. Because the facts I presented could not be refuted, I was instead attacked personally.  can you tell me which of the items I mentioned distorted facts? I am a fan of many dramas and movies. But have I gotten into a discussion like this over the others? No, because I didn't see anything wrong in their writeups. The fact is that the lede section of this drama is more negative than what the facts present, so attempts to remove the negativity is seen as "nice" and "biased" by those who are not familiar with the facts. Compare the lede section of this drama with those of other kdramas and you will be appalled at how negative it is. I compare this page with those of other kdramas and not just with other types of shows because whether we like it or not, readers will compare this drama with other kdramas, as I did, which was how I noticed the negativity. A smear campaign is indeed serious, which is why I am taking this case seriously. I have explained the smear campaign and sabotage in earlier discussions and would most likely be accused of writing "walls of text" if I repeat them here, so please check the Talk section of this drama. Please also see this complaint of Rating sabotage in https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/rating-sabotage/5f5fccf26880ca11de80de18. If you also care to read comments in MyDramalist, there are similar observations about fans of actors smearing or sabotaging dramas of rival actors (the site is triggering a protection filter so I cannot add the link here, but if you are curious, please see discussions 2 months ago in Backstreet Rookie). The comment section of The King on MyDramalist was infiltrated by saboteurs who loved calling it a flop. The internet is crawling with bad press about this drama, e.g. there are several articles saying the drama tanked on Netflix which is obviously false since it was successful on Netflix and the articles don't even attempt to give proof of the alleged poor performance on Netflix. If you search for this drama on google, the questions that appear on "People also ask" section are about this drama being a flop, indicating how bad the smear campaign had been. A newspaper called this drama a flop several episodes away from the finale, showing how eager some quarters were to label this drama and ignore its streaming success. It will be noted that both Backstreet Rookie and It's Okay To Not be Okay were faring even worse than this drama but rallied in the finale, indicating that until a drama has aired its finale, labelling it a flop is premature and malicious, effectively sabotaging that drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm not attacking you, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. I'm just tired of repeatedly telling you for the past few months that your edits and edit-suggestions has been biased and unneutral so far; removing paragraphs for no reason (Diff 1, Diff 2), deliberately changing neutral word to discouraged words on sentences you disagree with even though you were previously told about such guidelines (Diff 1, Diff 2), adding puffery such as "stunning second quarter performance" and "extremely popular" (Diff 1, Diff 2), using "hounded by" and "beset with" to undermine criticism and included your words that were not even stated on the sources (Diff 1, Diff 2). Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs and to promote ideas or beliefs. You should read Wp:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content and WP:LISTEN, and you should really question whether your intensions are honestly to present facts or your opinion of how the series should be viewed. The series facing a "smear campaign" is your opinion and motive to edit the page, but that has not be report by any news media (reliable or not) to my knowledge and holds no ground on Wikipedia as that is advocacy and original research. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , you make sure to introduce me to editors new to this dispute as a biased fan, effectively smearing my credibility and coloring other editors' perception of me. I am a fan of many kdramas and movies, but this is the only one I got into a discussion for like this. Being a fan of kdramas does not make one lose a sense of justice and proportion. In fact, it gave me perspective that other disinterested editors may not have, such as knowing this page is the most negative kdrama page on Wikipedia. Being a kdrama fan also made me know this drama is not as bad and a failure as its page is making it out to be. Is Wikipedia supposed to be merely a parrot where it just reports whatever is online? In that case, since, by definition, smear campaigns involve the generation of large quantities of negative materials, then, being a parrot, Wikipedia would tend to be a tool of smear campaigns. Furthermore, in this parrot mode, Wikipedia would not even need editors. It just needs an aggregator algorithm to collect whatever information is available online and present them according to some format. But as editors, we are supposed to be "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources" per WP:WIKIVOICE. What you dismiss as "my opinions" are results of hours of research and analyses.


 * Regarding your litany of my past edits, aside from just parroting negative statements online, the page of this drama also mentions negative aspects multiple times. The low domestic ratings are mentioned at least three times on the page in addition to the dedicated Ratings section where you added more tables about viewership in the middle of this dispute. The high production budget is also mentioned three times. I had been trying to delete the repetitions to reduce the negativity of the page, but my attempts had been undone. Also, please check those deletions more closely. Some are movements of sentences/paragraphs to more logical places on the page. Regarding "puffery", remarks about the extreme success of this drama had been deleted, so saying "extremely popular" was an attempt to give due weight to this under-reported achievement. The phrase about the "stunning performance" was about the "record-breaking second quarter earnings". So I guess "record-breaking" is acceptable, but not "stunning"? These are moot points anyway since, like other positive remarks about this drama, they had been removed. Regarding the phrases "beset with" and "hounded by", considering that the controversies and criticisms kept getting publicized even after the production team had apologized for them and given explanations, these phrases captured the situation appropriately. Regarding the use of words like "surmise" and "claim", please note that WP:Claim merely says these are "words to watch", not banned. The statements in question are opinions, some of which had been proven wrong. For example, the statement "the development of the plot, the editing and the forced scenes were the reasons the series failed to increase its ratings" is wrong in that it does not include a major reason for the low ratings - the rise in streaming services. In this case, "surmise" is a more appropriate word than "explain" since it is an opinion, not a statement of fact, and the statement is not only unverifiable, it had actually been proven wrong. Come to think of it, since this and similar statements had been proven wrong, why do they still need to be on the page? Oh, I forgot - Wikipedia is a parrot.


 * Now that all points against me have been explained for the nth time, creating another distraction and generating more "walls of text", let's focus on the real issue. I have listed the flaws of version A of the lede section. What others may call "walls of text" are earnest attempts to explain those flaws and respond to the comments. Yet I still have not received point-by-point comments about version B as I had given on version A. I am still awaiting a thorough explanation of why a flawed version (version A) would be chosen over the result of research and critical analysis (version B). Instead of accusations of me being a fan as well as a litany of my past edits, which I had given explanations for previously and above, the focus needs to be on the merits and flaws of the two versions presented. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I think this is my last message here, since you started diverting to other issues and the discussion is going in circles. What you are doing is synthesis of published material; reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the sources. Also, “Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information.” Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies, and you are going against them with your edits. Wikipedia doesn’t lead, it follows (parroting as you call it). CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , we're going around in circles because you keep repeating your accusations of me being a fan and a litany of my past edits even after I had already answered them. Up to now, nobody still has answered my question of why Wikipedia would choose a flawed version A over version B that has such flaws removed. Can you point out anything in version B that was not well-sourced or based on Wikipedia rules? Please re-read WP:WIKIVOICE that states, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources..." Careful and critical analysis is what makes human editors different from automated aggregator algorithms or parrots. Analysis does not mean coming up with your own opinion but making sure the finished product conforms to Wikipedia rules such as fairness, giving due weights to views, avoiding stating opinions as facts, using nonjudgmental language, etc. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , listen, Nangears already answered you in the RFC of Second Paragraph of Lede, go read it there. As for the RFC on Reception section, users already wrote their opinion that they found version A more neutral next to their vote, they don't have to go point-by-point and explain it to you. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , Michaelelijahtanuwijaya left no comments. Nangears mentioned lack of balance of version B. From his arguments, there is a misconception that the weight of low domestic ratings is equivalent to the drama's success in Wavve + Netflix South Korea + Netflix international all put together. This is the nonequivalence that version A espouses. Please read my responses to his comments. Revolutionaery suggested another version that has acceptable first and second sentences, but succeeding sentences also suffer from the same nonequivalence, not to mention containing the word "claim" that you have a problem with. In addition, saying the drama "failed to impress audiences" is false considering the drama's success in Netflix and Wavve. Nangears and Revolutionery both gave suggestions on how to improve the paragraph that I partly agree with. However, the main issues that triggered this dispute in the first place - giving more weight to low ratings than warranted and downplaying the international success - are still not resolved. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

, again, I think Nangears already talked about this point and explained why the TV rating is given due weight, so I will give a short answer. The problem is not “giving more weight to low ratings than warranted” as TV ratings was the most talked about aspect in reliable news, the problem is that you don’t want to accept that most reliable sources did extensively talk about it and it was given due weight on the page, while “international success” in Netflix (Wavve is Korean and can’t be used outside of Korea, so it is not international platform) news almost all come from unreliable sources and thus given undue weight because it has not reliable source backing it. I asked multiple of times in different noticeboards and was told not to use flixpetrol data or Netflix daily top 10 country charts and to wait for the end-of-year Netflix reports (still a few months and we will include Netflix success if they report it in January). For now, we include what is reliable and wait for more news, instead of adding unreliable claims and be biased in trying to make the series seem like it was the biggest success this year when reliable sources (Korean and western) criticized it and marked it as a TV failure compared to what was expected in term of viewership ratings.

All the people who votes in the RFC were all against your changes, so you should really listen and accept that all of them do not agree with you, instead of repeating the same points again. As Robert McClenon said to you before, “ Do you really think that, if you haven't made your points by stating them twice, you will make them by calling everyone and stating them a third time? Sometimes if the points you are trying to convey do not get through, it is because other editors disagree.” CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , first, you make a point of introducing me as a biased fan and putting a spin on my past edits, smearing my credibility. Second, editors who tried to remove the negativity of this page have been blocked. I don't mean the sockpuppets but naive editors like me who were unaware of power games played on Wikipedia and were tricked into edit wars and blocked, as you had tried to do with me. This is why I asked before, how sure are we that those who vote on surveys are impartial? Now I know. Getting through prejudices and misconceptions is the hardest thing in the world. Just now, you have blocked out everything I just said about the need of Wikipedia editors to analyze sources and not just parrot everything they see online, especially in this age of fake news and smear campaigns.


 * If Wikipedia editors just weigh the significance of items based on how many search results come up, it would be a tool of misinformation and smear campaigns. Even if we discount smear campaigns, logic still gives a reason for the "extensive talk" about the low ratings of this drama. This drama first aired from April 17 to June 12. This period is when the drama became most popular, thus generated most talk. At this point, nobody had an idea of why the show was "failing", so a lot of speculations abounded. Information about the main reason for the low domestic TV ratings, the surge of popularity of Netflix in April, as well as other well-sourced testaments to the international success of this drama became available only after the second quarter of the year, after the drama finale aired, after its popularity subsided. Armed with these new facts, why continue to sow misinformation?


 * Knowing what we know now about this drama, this paragraph is clearly negatively unbalanced - its international success is not only the last item in a super-long sentence but is in quotes ("hit Netflix drama") lowering its credibility. In addition, the lower-than-expected domestic ratings in the second sentence preceded by "On the other hand" puts it on equal footing with all the successes in the first sentence. As I had said, I don't deny that the domestic TV broadcast rating of this drama got lower after the premiere; I even mention it in version B. What I object to is the undue weight it is being given in version A. No matter how much you try to discredit this fact, it is plain for every unbiased and informed reader to see. Regarding sources, Version B does not reference Flixpatrol. It references reliable sources, notably testaments of the production studio itself about the streaming success of this drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not put a spin to your previous changes, you actually did them and your edit history shows those biased disruptive changes. You were a sleeper account that came back just to blank the controversy section multiple times for no reason, how do you explain that then? You blanked it until you were warned by others about edit warring, you then disregarded the warning after a few weeks and even went on to edit war with me. No one was tricked to edit war, if someone is edit-warring it is their mistake, not other’s scheme. Everyone receives warnings before being banned, whether they ignore the warning or not is their own decision and they should face the consequences. Also, please do not discredit the people who took their time to vote and reply to you on the RFCs, simply, because they did not vote for your version.


 * Again, there was never a smear campaign against the series and you have no source backing that up. Saving the series from “fake news/smear campaign/hate” is advocacy and a biased reason you have been repeating for months, using it to make your changes seem neutral, while in reality it is all your false opinion which goes under original research and hold no ground on Wikipedia. As for the second paragraph about the rating and international success, Nangears and I already answered you about that on the RFC, so I will not bother repeating it, go read it there and stop repeating points you have already stated and has been answered multiple times. It is your problem if you want to ignore the answers given to you many times.


 * To the admins, “When advocacy is not disclosed, it often manifests through behaviors such as tendentious editing, stonewalling, argumentum ad nauseam, or ignoring the opinions of others. When such behavior occurs over a length of time, advocacy is often the cause.” This is the case here and currently the discussion reached argumentum ad nauseam. I don’t think I will reply anymore unless an admin pings me here. We really need intervention, if either of us is wrong then tell us and end this 5 month-long dispute, so that we can go back to editing the page instead of this standstill. One of the RFCs already ended with a a unanimous decision and I want to edit the page and include the version with the consensus. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , please re-read my responses to the meanings you put (your spins) on my past edits. As I had mentioned several times, my main aim is to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia. I started editing this drama's page upon noticing its negative lean, especially after reading other web sources mention sabotage being staged against it. Please re-read my past comments about this. The controversies were among the tools used by saboteurs. You keep saying that the "smear campaign" is my personal opinion, ignoring my past comments about this. Guess what, smear campaigns don't come labelled as such. Here's a sample; google this drama and "tanked on Netflix". One of the search results is from "reliable" news site scmp.com. Note this is fake news since the series was in fact successful on Netflix. Read the article; it doesn't provide any proof of the allegation. Check out other "well-sourced" articles on this drama's Wikipedia page that did not mention the main reason, the rise of streaming platforms, in their speculations about the reasons for the low ratings. You keep accusing me of "advocacy", your personal opinion. Is it advocacy to make sure Wikipedia is not made a tool of smear campaigns? I am proud to declare myself an advocate of truth and up-to-date information. Regarding edit wars, you seem to have forgotten you started our last edit war by updating the title of a section while this dispute was going on, violating WP:DRN Rule A and WP:DRN Rule B. In fact you made other more massive edits in the middle of this dispute. Why you did not get reprimanded or subjected to other forms of disciplinary action is beyond me.


 * But we got sidetracked again with personal attacks, creating more "walls of text". May we focus on the drama please? At this point in time, these are the things we know about it: it was highly anticipated, had high premiere ratings on domestic TV network but competition from Netflix and Wavve as well as controversies and criticisms affected the domestic TV ratings in later episodes. It was a streaming success, both locally and internationally, and was cited as one of the factors for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of its production company.


 * Which of the two versions encapsulate this UP-TO-DATE summary? Please see my previous post for details about recent news about this drama. We need to make sure Wikipedia does not sow misinformation by getting bogged down in OUTDATED perceptions. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia only deals with published perceptions. If there is a reliable newspaper or magazine which documents a changing perception (say a critically panned movie later gets a cult fanbase) that can be included only if newspapers or magazines talk about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The up-to-date information I mentioned were published by news sources such as Business Korea, Korea Times and Hancinema. Please see the references in the Reception section. Older references feature negative news including speculations on the low domestic TV ratings. More recent references are positive, including findings on the reason for the drama's perceived poor performance on domestic TV network as well as testaments to its streaming success that became available only after the second quarter of 2020. It will be noted that the average domestic TV ratings of this drama are better than those of its contemporaries It's Okay To Not be Okay and BackStreet Rookie, yet these latter dramas do not have their low ratings mentioned, much less blown out of proportion, in their lede sections. Many people had been conditioned to think this drama was a flop they find it hard to accept the fact that not only was it not a flop, it was a global success. Wikipedia should let go of outdated misconceptions and acknowledge up-to-date information. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You should not conflate TV ratings with the production company sales, they are separate facts and are each mentioned on the article. Also, I might have phrased it badly on the talk, but in the article, it is written that the ratings are only “lower than expected”, not “low” TV-wise. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Read the production company reports closely. The sales figures themselves are not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that the reports cited the success of The King Eternal Monarch as one of the factors that contributed to the production company's record-breaking earnings. While the drama's global success had been reported before, the main source was Flixpatrol which was considered unreliable and was mentioned in Wikipedia with a dismissive "hit Netflix drama" cliche, including the credibility-questioning quotes. That TKEM was the first kdrama to be in the top 10 charts not only in Asia but in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America could not be reported because the data came from Flixpatrol. But the production company's earnings report is undeniable testament to the extent of the drama's success. And for the nth time, I don't deny the drama had lower ratings than expected. The main bone of contention is that the second paragraph is worded in such a way as to blow the low ratings out of proportion and downplay the drama's success. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Admins, Lizzydarcy2008 already confessed to being an advocate (diff). Per WP:ADVOCACY, "When advocacy is not disclosed, it often manifests through behaviors such as tendentious editing, stonewalling, argumentum ad nauseam, or ignoring the opinions of others. When such behavior occurs over a length of time, advocacy is often the cause ... Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and disruptive editing can provide the basis for blocking an editor."

Currently, both RFCs ended as it been more than a month (bot removed the RFC template and there was no delaying to the bot or restarting the RFC by Lizzydarcy2008 so far), and no comments for 2 weeks as it reached argumentum ad nauseam, and a requests for closure was submitted by another editor. The decision on both was unanimously against Lizzydarcy2008 suggestions, so now they moved to engaging in Ownership of content and Tendentious editing by reverting new, of course reliably sourced, additions I added to the page that were not discussed with them first (talk, diff). I really don't know what to do anymore as this has been going on for 6 months and no admin stepped in. I shouldn't need to ask Lizzydarcy2008 permission before adding something to the page and fear it being reverted for no reason. Per consensus, "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Everyone, except Lizzydarcy2008, agreed to the current changes on the page, but Lizzydarcy2008 keeps repeating the same argument without convincing people and never accepting independent input and questioning their impartiality because no one agrees with their suggested change. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Used strikethrough on my request as the other user was blocked by an admin while I was writing my above message. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Endofcity and Clive Tyldesley
I recently spotted that there was a claim in the Clive Tyldesley article that the subject is referred to by the nickname "The Ghanaian" in reference to a perceived bias in his commentary of the team's games at the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Although a source was cited, it was a very recent source that looked to me like it had taken its info directly from Wikipedia, and as I was unable to back up the claim in any other sources, I removed it from the article. Within hours, it had been restored by User:Endofcity, who ignored my comment on the article talk page (see here) and claimed without justification that the source was reliable and thus the claim was valid. Having done more research, I have discovered that Endofcity originally added the claim in 2016 (see here) using a different source (now a 404, archived here). As you can see, although the source acknowledges Tyldesley's bias towards Ghana, it does not mention him being referred to as "The Ghanaian". Because I apparently have a decent standard of evidence for including information on Wikipedia, Endofcity has now baselessly accused me of being a fan of Tyldesley, or even being Tyldesley himself, and refuses to engage in discussion on the article talk page. There is clearly a slow motion edit war going on here on their part, and I suggest it not be allowed to continue. – PeeJay 13:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I should add, I've googled the terms tyldesley "ghanaian" and the only matches that come up are mirrors of Wikipedia or sites using the exact same wording as Wikipedia, hence my suspicions that they have cribbed notes from us and simply copied the site verbatim. Hardly reliable sources if they're using Wikipedia as their own source. – PeeJay 13:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain to you, the nickname is in widespread us in certain parts of the UK. Whether you have heard of this or not doesn't mean it's not true. Plus, there is a credible citation. Quite why you are getting yourself so worked up about this matter is beyond me and I don't think it fair, nor respectful to swear aggressively at other users. If it's this important to you, delete it and I won't re-instate it. I also don't think this board is the place to attempt to resolve such a ridiculously petty issue.--Endofcity (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A UKian writes: Which parts of the UK? Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You've claimed the name is in widespread use, but you haven't provided any evidence to back that up, other than your word. The citation is not credible for the reasons I explained above. If you say you won't reinstate the info, that's good enough for me, but the evidence to date has been less than compelling that you will accept anything other than a spurious nickname being included in this article. I totally agree that such petty disputes shouldn't get to this page, but when you refuse to engage in discussion on the article talk page and your only edits to that article before today have been to include this nonsense nickname, you rather force my hand. – PeeJay 14:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Every time some stupid controversy like so-and-so's nickname wastes the community's time, it hastens the day that we simply drop all coverage of football personalities (other than Pelé, of course). So keep it up. EEng 14:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that helps the discussion, User:EEng, but thank you for your input. – PeeJay 14:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm playing the long game. EEng</b> 05:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hoof it and hope? Narky Blert (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't comment here on the content issue, but reverting back and forth on this isn't productive., the content has been challenged, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are reliable sources that support this assertion. Please discuss this with other interested parties on the article talk page, and gain consensus before reinstating the content. Best Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Abusive IP/account
has left a charming but illiterate message for me at Commons. FDW777 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary of blocking people who were putting truth out there, he didnt like it so decided to block me and the editing (constant changes of Derry to Londonderry) this IP would appear to be as well. FDW777 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked that IP as well. They've been on my list for a bit due to their edits. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * blocked for 2 weeks. I've also lengthened Calebmerson2's block. The changes of Derry to LondonDerry look like they might be automated. For the attack on Commons you'll have to report to admins on Commons. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speedy action. FDW777 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Adder of exact dates
A few days after the end of a week-long block, User:95.175.85.38 has resumed the behavior that led to the block. It isn't explicitly vandalism, but it's a matter of adding exact dates to articles where previously only a year, or a month and year, had been given, without supplying a source to support each date. This is after another editor had challenged some of the dates. When this user supplied a couple of sources, neither supported the claim. The user was asked, therefore, to supply sources for any dates added, and was directed to the instructions for doing so multiple times. Yet, at User talk:95.175.85.38, the user continues to ask "How do I do this?" as though ample direct instructions hadn't already been given. Another block? I wasn't sure this would count as vandalism so I'm asking here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I find the rapid-fire addition of these dates suspicious. It's as though the user is either making them up, or else has the source material under their nose, yet still has not managed to cite it after numerous requests to do so. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This user has also used with exactly the same unreferenced edits and warnings. Perhaps a rangeblock is in order, as the person is taking no notice of advice and warnings. David J Johnson (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I left a warning at the talk page for and . Please notify me (such as with a ping from a talk page or on my talk if necessary) if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

BumbleBeast57445
was blocked for one week for disruptive editing. I revoked TPA after they responded to the block notice with a PA. They are now trolling my talk page at Simple English Wikipedia - could someone with the necessary crosswiki tools take a look? Thanks in advance. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 08:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Link for convenience Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  08:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would probably be more efficient to ask there for a page protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is one user - surely blocking the user is more efficient than protecting the page (and presumably then going round whichever Wikis I have talk pages at playing whackamole)? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  08:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can also request a block there, the user is not yet eligible for a global lock, and it is probably easy to find a simple admin on simple than a global admin here.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well since you bring it up, there's no shortage of simple admins right here at enwp. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 08:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , fair enough, I probably won't bother unless they persist. I'll leave it for others to decide whether we're happy with this person's block expiring here in six days. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  08:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see this new user as anything but a full-blown troll, based on their User page and edit history. I see enough already to call for an global indef, for being WP:NOTHERE. A clear case, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging : Global lock? Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC).

The user has a userbox saying they are 14 years old. If so, perhaps mentoring would be more appropriate? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd normally be inclined to agree with you, but their responses to messages so far don't give me the impression that they'd be receptive. I tried to reach out to them on their talk after I gave them a 24-hour block for edit warring (which was an attempt to add content that they admitted was fake to an article), but they ignored that; they went back to edit warring and ignoring advice almost immediately after the block expired, then then took to leaving abusive messages - now spreading across different wikis - when they got blocked again. Perhaps they'd respond better to someone who hadn't just blocked them, so if someone wants to step forward to try to mentor them then fine, but I'm not confident that their attitude is compatible with the project at this moment in time. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Locked. Once they crossed the line into another wiki, it potentially became a global problem. The tone of their messages in both wikis, including the abuse logs, suggest it is someone who knows what they are doing is unacceptable. One or two angry messages is not lockable but persistent messages of this nature mean they can discuss the issues through stewards OTRS. -Green Giant (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking care of it, Green Giant. Cross-wiki abuse is always a problem for us simple admins, per EEng above. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC).
 * , thanks both for handling this so swiftly. I confess to being too simple to want to get my head around the reporting procedures at other wikis! Cheers  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work, and thanks. Time is our most precious commodity. This is a great example of teamwork to shut down a time-sink. I've reverted enough vandalism over the past decade plus to know the irredeemable types. Cheers to you all! Jusdafax (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Over exhaustive and indecent behaviour
It is profoundly noticed that user is tryin' build a profound supremacy o'vr certain articles and blatantly reverting the sourced edits. Furthermore, I respect him due to his experience more than me but I've gone through the policies and regulation stipulated by wikipedia. He reverted many-a-edits of mine I'd like to show one for instance I cited the name used by player himself and the articles are connotin'  and  but he valiantly disregard'd it. I've also cited the name used the articles. This made me and other user decently involved feel indecent. Furthermore, he tries to threat me to block as a friend of him is admin and also use loathesome tone. He is unabash'd when I requested to be usin' a decent tone. He's like makin' satire of the decent and open Wiki policies. Please look out in this envious and devious behaviour and establish measures 'gainst him.

Regards

SHISHIR DUA 14:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To the admins, every single line written above is bogus and blatant lie and there is no truth exist whatsoever. These are serious accusation made by the user who themselves abusing editing privileges and this one is nothing but an attempt to harass. One must ask the user if they understand, profound supremecy over article, blatantly reverting and ask why went on to accuse me of having a friend who is an admin. Wow ! I mean you just put axe on your own feet with that line. Only thing that I want to tell now is, if one goes through their talk page history, their contributions and most importantly block log one can understand how much they are following guidelines, understand guidelines and even care about them, most importantly core content policies like VER/RS/CITE or in some cases MOS and article creation. Even after that if the admin needs any further explanation from me about the user's activities I would love to respond in details. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As anticipat'd indecencies and unprecedented lies. Needs proper restrictions. SHISHIR DUA 16:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the edit complained about, Drat8sub reverted SHISHIR DUA's .  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Boomerang proposal for . He has removed 3 warnings given to him by for repeatedly re-adding information from an unreliable source, even after being pinged to a talk page message to stop doing so. I don't see any evidence of SHISHIR DUA asking Drat8sub to change his tone, nor do I see any instance where Drat8sub could be making the OP feel 'indecent' or using a 'loathsome tone', let alone threatening to block him. This is purely an content disupte with IDHT on SHISHIR DUA's part, and the continuation of a pattern of behavior which has resulted in numerous blocks for repeatedly adding unsourced content, competence concerns, and just general disruptive editing.
 * Also, SHISHIR DUA, please try to write words fully - your use of apostrophes has made this much harder to read. Giraffer munch 17:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye-aye, cap'n! M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of a boomerang. People considering this may want to have a look at some of the things mentioned in this thread. I highly recommend reading 's comment there in full, but to summarise, there are concerns about
 * hat collecting behaviour (e.g. Special:Permalink/972613581, Special:Diff/916194883)
 * inappropriate talk page messages to female editors (Special:Diff/971132589, Special:Diff/971100033)
 * and canvassing (Special:Diff/977579571)
 * That, combined with the behaviour that led to the blocks mentioned above, including a fairly recent one by makes me believe that an examination of 's conduct is more warranted than a discussion of 's actions. (Full disclosure: Giraffer mentioned his boomerang proposal to me off-wiki. He did not ask me to participate in this thread.) — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum: the two previous ANI threads about SHISHIR DUA (1, 2) may also be noteworthy. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) This users' contributions seriously make my brain melt. I can't tell if they are just young or what, but competence is very clearly an issue either way. The insistence on using a southern drawl while typing, the extremely inappropriate edits to other users' talk pages, the bizarre hat-collecting and complete lack of self-awareness... it's like WP:NOTHERE was written for them. I spent about 20 minutes going through their contributions and I'd like my 20 minutes back.  M r A urelius R   Talk! 04:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mention the thread to Blablubbs, but in no way did I ask him to participate, apologies for not mentioning that sooner. Thanks. Giraffer munch 18:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mention the thread to Blablubbs, but in no way did I ask him to participate, apologies for not mentioning that sooner. Thanks. Giraffer munch 18:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I havent followed SHISHIR DUA's edits in a while. But from what I had gathered till then, I would have suggested a topic ban from WP:PERM, and chit-chat type of conversation with any editor. First I was not sure if they have English competency issue, or they intentionally provide false information: once on enwiki, in request a for rollback, Shishir Dua stated they have rollback on two other projects. It was false. But the requester above Shishir Dua had said the same, and they had rollback on two other projects. I cant be sure if Shishir Dua intentionally lied about it, or copied the request without much consideration. Also, there are many comments where their wording (synonym words) is a little off, giving me very strong doubt that they use some sort of thesaurus software. But later I realised I cant assume much goodfaith here, as they often mis-present things, tell one side of the story (like this original post/complaint), and exaggerate things. Although a lot of their contributions are helpful to enwiki, a lot others are not. I strongly suggest them to get a mentor. you aint gonna get those twenty minutes back matey. You wantchu know what me think bout it? Say "aargh", and fuggedaboutit. Seriously speaking: I had tried to tell them about their vocabulary, but they never responded. Once they responded on meta a few weeks later, and said I should consult a dictionary. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Think it's time for an indefinite WP:CIR block. Taken as a whole, I don't see a lot to encourage optimism about OP. (and I always type with a Southron accent. Y'all are just tone-deaf). -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 19:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the April ANI thread linked above, recommended an indefinite block on the next occasion. This was followed by Bishonen's block in September with a recommendation that the next block should be indefinite. I will therefor do so. As always, any admin can adjust or unblock if they feel warranted. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good block; I was reading through the history and strongly contemplating the same thing when you went ahead and did it. There is a long history of general unhelpful disruption and poor communication, which shows no sign of changing in the foreseeable future despite several lengthy blocks already. ~ mazca  talk 19:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

MarcoAntonio007. disruptive editing
User has been warned about five times for disruptive editing, once by bots, 4x by other users. It looks like intervention is required. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them for two days and will give him a partial ban from certain pages they disrupt when that block expires. I'm not hopeful they will become a productive editor but let's see what effect a block will have on them. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Iamveryshy22
This user has repeatedly vandalised articles including Siad Barre and has been abusive towards editors in their edit summaries e.g. "bro, why is wikipedia a mouthpiece for JSL revisionism, fucking hell, stop shaming Somalia and her heroes, you Mengistu Communist bastards"

Additionally, on the Template:Military ranks by country page whereby their edit summary was "Somalilands one isnt even a rank table also its not real you isaaq tribalists, astaghfirullah, stop this grave worship of Sheikh Isaaq and the British Empire". This sort of behaviour coupled with accusations of "propaganda and historical revisionism" on their edits on the Somali Democratic Republic does not assume good faith nor is it constructive. Please look into this and take the appropriate course of action. Jacob300 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also note this edit where they deleted the entire section on Mohammad Ali Samatar's involvement with the Isaaq Genocide with the edit summary "Fixed" and This edit where they used the arrest and release of a pro-unification activist to add a seemingly WP:OR paragraph seeming to attack the Isaaq. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have given User:Iamveryshy22 a sharp warning for tendentious editing and bad behavior. Feel free to let me know if they persist, in case I lose sight of it. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC).

User: Skylark8973

 * clearly WP:NOTHERE as they continue to make problematic edits based on personal preference. This editor has also harassed and personal attacked me, please see User talk:YoungForever. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   23:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * After reviewing their editing history and attitude toward other editors, I've blocked Skylark8973 indefinitely.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Wide rangeblock request in Campo Grande, Brazil
For years now, someone in Campo Grande, Brazil, has been disruptive in articles relating to heavy metal and hard rock music, Japanese anime, and professional fights. I keep running into this person in music articles where they routinely change genres to whatever seems right to them, not caring about what the references say. For instance, the person removed the heavy metal genre from an album that AllMusic described as "epic classic metal". The disruption has come from a variety of IPs, but for a few years now the biggest problem is Special:Contributions/2804:7F3:4980:48:0:0:0:0/36 – a very large range. It looks to me like the whole range is this one person, so no collateral damage from a block. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The way Vivo works, customers often bounce around on several /48s without much collateral damage. In that wide IP range, there are really only three IP ranges used:
 * Special:Contributions/2804:7F3:4880::/48
 * Special:Contributions/2804:7F3:4980::/48 (until August 2020)
 * Special:Contributions/2804:7F3:4c80::/44
 * I'll block the top and bottom ones. If 2804:7F3:4980::/48 becomes active again, it can be blocked, too.  Some of the edits on that /36 look familiar, but a lot of the genre warriors in heavy metal albums and horror films look interchangeable when you're not familiar with them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Darknessitselfflames, 103.75.162.18 and Sunset Shimmer
Last month, this IP started removing sourced content from List of bisexual characters in animation and List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2015–2019 (here and here), specifically related to the character Sunset Shimmer, as well as some vandalism, as seen here. They were warned and eventually blocked. Now they've registered an account and are doing much the same: and. After reviewing the video (and the twitter post again), I came to the conclusion that the information in the page is correct and left a warning at their talk page, assuming they'd decide to discuss the issue. Unfortunately they've resorted to personal attacks.

Since I'm not sure how to best deal with them (and whether or not I'm correct in my assessment of the information), I've brought this here. Isabelle 🔔 13:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

NO WAY IT WAS ATTACK WE JUST DONT WANT WIKIPEDIA TO GIVE SOMETHING FALSE PLEASE CHECK THE LINK AND THE VIDEO AGAIN ANYONE WITH HALF BRAIN WILL UNDERSTAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknessitselfflames (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please remain WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Spiderone  13:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

NO YOU HAVE NOT CHECKED CHECK THIS LINK AND THE VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CERhCMF9uzU&t=2356s please look into the video at just 38:00( at 38:00 you will ) of this hour long video she says herself(DIRECTOR KHADELY) and the twitter link again https://twitter.com/isitlunchyet_t/status/1176924351469195265 you will find the answer ISSABLE admitting youself wrong correcting yourself you do not lose anything ISSABLE but you gain more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknessitselfflames (talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: has been blocked for 31 hours. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  14:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please dont capizalise every character. Its considered shouting and will cause most editors not even bothering to read your post. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The video you linked includes the quote from K Hadley, "Sure, Sunset is bi. I get it." The tweet you linked to was a reply to this tweet from Twitter user "IsItLunchYet_t" (who identifies as, but is not verified as the director of My Little Pony: Equestria Girls) in which she states clearly "FYI, Sunset is bi." I'm not sure how you take these links as a refutation of this information. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. In fact, it further supports the case that Sunet Shimmer is bi. I don't understand why that entry got so much attention. I removed other entries from those pages for the show before, but there has been a lot of edit warring over that entry for some reason. Not sure why.Historyday01 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced genres
Despite a multitude of warnings, including several final ones, a previous block for this very reason and a personal plea from myself quite recently (if you are prepared to scroll past the almost countless speedy deletion nominations on their talk page), LisburnThePriest continues to add unsourced info to articles and refuses to communicate with concerned editors such as myself. Examples of these edits can be seen here, here, here and here. These edits, it should be noted, were after my recent personal plea. I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look please.  Rob van  vee  16:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Zero talk page posts and nearly 2 years since their last (of three in total) user talk page post. It seems they aren't big on communication. FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Or following V.  Rob van  vee  17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked this editor. They can be unblocked if they agree to stop adding unreferenced content such as genres. They must also agree to communicate with other editors. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks .  Rob van  vee  19:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, hopefully this will lead to a change. Between UnitedStatesian and I, we have posted probably a hundred CSD C1 speedy deletion notices on his talk page over the past few years. I could never get him to stop creating empty categories. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by User:Horse Eye's Back
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I view by  as an unacceptable WP:UNCIVIL disparagement of Richard Lundy with various WP:VAGUEWAVE allegations about his website and allegations of self-promotion also problematic. At a simple first glance Lundy is attempting to compile a "useful" cited website outside of Wikipedia and I feel Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox to make such allegations against Lundy and his site. It may be that his site is unsuitable for sourcing purposes by Wikipedia, but I believe there is need to clamp down on such incivility especially when directed at RL people outside Wikipedia (and possibly behind their back). When challenged about the statement at WP:RSN I'm not really seeing acknowledgement of acceptance of the incivility by Horse Eye's Back. Looking at Horse Eye's Back talk page it appears a little troublesome. The user account page correctly identifies the, unfortunately this also gives indications of problematic behavior. An example of a shortish sharp reminder of civility for Horse Eye's Back may be appropriate and perhaps even needed to demonstrate Wikipedia will not accept use of its site to disparage external persons. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I explained myself and reverted after  pointed out to me that I was probably over the line BLP wise. That was almost twelve hours ago. Why this user is bringing this up now is a mystery to me. Again the issue here if it was one would be a BLP issue, I’m unsure how WP:UNCIVIL or WP:VAGUEWAVE would even apply in this situation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Because I have been doing RL things for the last 12 hours, and I have RL commitments to people I care about I have to deal with firsrt. Yes you were over the line in my opinion..   Your response was the 'B' response not the 'A' response.  You haven't even offered an apology to the guy as far as I can see; though you might have emailed him an apology for all I know.  And I observe you are tending to argue back rather than reflecting and considering how you might improve your behavior in future.  And you've had plenty of warnings before and they don't seem to be having effect.  Maybe we will see what others views are.  I not you've made vaguewave opinions without supply supporting evidence.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve already accepted that my wording, although defensible, wasn’t what I meant and corrected the passage in question. The person who publishes the SPS under question is as far as I know not a wikipedia editor so unsure about how or why there would be an apology even on the table here. What do you mean by A and B responses? How does the essay subsection WP:VAGUEWAVE apply to this situation? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * HEB, you're not the only one who finds Djm-leighpark's comments on this matter incomprehensible. --JBL (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bottom line: Its a serious issue to allegations about RL people on wikipedia (and to think thats acceptable because the're known to be an editor on Wikipedia!). I may be tired and incomprehensible but its a pretty serious issue.  Not not even to offer an apology! Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you Richard Lundy? If not, there is no one for HEB to apologize to.  Instead, several hours before you raised this complaint, HEB redacted their own comment.  This waste of time thread should be closed ASAP. --JBL (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @. No I am not Richard Lundy.  There is a possibility of using the email link on the website page to make an apology, however that discloses personal information so I will accept that is an issue.I will disclose I emailed Richard Lundy from that link when I seen the allegation.  I do observe you are in a hurry to close this thread, and perhaps given the fact, if I am not mistaken, that you have been blocked previously you may have a vested interest in discussions such as this not taking place.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ooo-kay. I'll leave you to your deeply bizarre ramblings; please don't ping me again. --JBL (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Did HEB make a rather ill-judged comment? Yes. Was it redacted twelve hours ago by HEB himself? Yes. Should this thread be closed for being a timewaste? Yes. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ESMT Student Assistant
All edits so far add references to European School of Management and Technology in numerous BLP articles. Quote: “ESMT Berlin is the highest ranked business school in Germany and Top 10 in Europe”. Examples:, ,. The user name suggests a case of paid editing. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeffblock for now with leave to revisit provided a new username is chosen and the editor declares a COI if present. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Creepy vandalism, with sexual objectification
Please rev/delete edits by. I've also requested a block at AIV, but when nobody's minding that store the pre-adolescents play. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've blocked the IP and handled the edits. I'll also go check in over at AIV to clear the backlog. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . And please disable their talk page access. WP:NOTHERE except to stalk celebrities. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk page access revoked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , looks to me like there needs to be some rev-delling of user talk:24.5.142.114 given content that is massively in violation of BLP... EdChem (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Handled by NRP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor
has been making unconstructive edits for a long time, with their main contributions being adding unneeded linking of common words, all around unconstructive edits where they do a range of things such as adding unencyclopedic language and change quotations so they don't match the source, often breaking sentences, sometimes veering into vandalism. More examples here, here and here. The user has not responded to any attempts to get them to stop these unconstructive edits and continues to do so. Whether lack of WP:COMPETENCE or unwillingness to engage, the result is a lot of disruption. Eik Corell (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Eik Corell, I agree with you, that in general these edits are not constructive at all. But most of the edits are not really disruptive either. There surely is a problem if this anonymous editor does not want to talk about his edits. I'm not an admin, and I don't know much about procedures concerning this kind of things, but I'll keep an eye on it and if there is anything I can do to help you to solve this problem, let me know. --Dick Bos (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Wielding the Salmoninae?
There is a bad-tempered exchange at talk:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) following a WP:RSN thread. seems unhappy with the results and is being goaded. I'm now WP:INVOLVED, so could another admin take a look please and see if Emigré55 needs a warning. Thanks Guy (help! - typo?) 17:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 1/ On «following a WP:RSN thread. Emigré55 seems unhappy»:
 * Unless I am mistaken or have forgotten, I have not expressed any feeling about it so far, happiness or unhappiness, other than :
 * to the closing of the thread WP:RSN:
 * "Meanwhile an administrator, Guy, closed the debate. And his decision is good at least, in my opinion, because it is fair to say that we know now we won’t convince either The Banner or you that Couwenbergh is a reliable source, whatever arguments (and there were quite a few, substantial) were brought for that. " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&diff=982219698&oldid=982205474
 * and confirmed it to Guy here:
 * "JzG, You are mistaken. I have written here above that I respect your decision ("Meanwhile an administrator, Guy, closed the debate. And his decision is good at least, in my opinion, because it is fair to say that we know now we won’t convince either The Banner or you that Couwenbergh is a reliable source, whatever arguments (and there were quite a few, substantial) were brought for that. "). And, on the contrary to what you write, The Banner is the one who asked that you reopen the case, here. And you accepted. Why then blame me/others? Why don't you blame him then for not respecting your initial decision? and fueling instead the dispute, as he enjoys to do, as evidenced in other cases?--Emigré55 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&diff=982384939&oldid=982383315
 * to the freezing itself of the main page, I expressed only:
 * “That is OK to me.",
 * here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&diff=982393918&oldid=982393331
 * 2/ On “The Banner is being goaded”:
 * My apologies if I wrote something that mislead anyone to think that I have goaded someone, which never was my intention, on the contrary.
 * As Guy did not provide any diff, I frankly do not see where and when I have goaded him.
 * On the contrary, I have been goaded several time by The Banner:
 * for instance calling me “Dude”, here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&diff=982015629&oldid=981968490
 * or, “you read badly...”, on my personal talk page, here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emigré55&diff=978729819&oldid=978728309
 * ...I could add other examples if needed.
 * The present discussion on this talk page also shows that The Banner has a history for goading other contributors, such as, in my opinion, whom I let express if and how he feels goaded from The Banner.
 * I therefore think that, if someone deserves, at least, a warning, it is The Banner.
 * As I expressed to The Banner several times, as here: "I read badly": A personal attack, to top up your continued harassment? --Emigré55 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)", I even really feel harassed by him, which I could also further substantiate if needed.
 * --Emigré55 (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Another example of one of the first "goading" message, posted on my personal talk page, which started in August the harassment I suffered without interruption until then, with numerous other messages of that style, from The Banner: "Nice try to hide your battleground behaviour and the fact that you simple do not have a clue. The Banner talk 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)"
 * Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emigré55&diff=975033946&oldid=975017205t . --Emigré55 (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are several people in that discussion (I count at least 5), and everybody is goading everybody. Nobody is refraining from discussing editors, everybody is discussing editors. If everyone goes back and follows guidelines of discussing only content and not editors, everything would be fine. Stop naming editors, stop using the words "you/yours", stop making accusations. Discuss content, policy, guidelines. And if it doesn't get resolved that way, create an RfC. Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , here, and as far as The Banner is concerned, the problem with him is that his attitude goes back to other discussions too, as I have illustrated by other goading messages from him to me just here above, e.g. on my own talk page, about other articles.
 * Another example of a "goading" message to me by The Banner, in another discussion he created, which lead nowhere, after numerous messages to prove him with adequate sources he repeatedly ignored that he was wrong in spite of what he was claiming: "Great, you clearly have no flipping clue. And due to your lack of understanding, you need edit wars and personal attacks. To be honest, you give me the susicion that you and Marc Couwenbergh are identical."
 * Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner&diff=975030543&oldid=975015946
 * In my opinion, a strong warning to him would help calm down not only this very discussion, but all others where he decides to intervene, sometimes with even false statements (which I can substantiate also if needed), creating endless discussions, and also pointless discussions, which he keeps "fueling" this way, literally goading people. --Emigré55 (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To repeat: There are several people in the discussion (I count at least 5), and everybody is goading everybody. Nobody is refraining from discussing editors, everybody is discussing editors. If everyone goes back and follows guidelines of discussing only content and not editors, everything would be fine. Stop naming editors, stop using the words "you/yours", stop making accusations, don't respond to provocations. Discuss content, policy, guidelines. And if it doesn't get resolved that way, create an RfC. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , just one question, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I do not know everything: what is an RfC, and, if needed, where can I find guidance and explanations to create one? Thank you in advance. --Emigré55 (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:RFC. RfCs concerning article content should be opened on the talk page of the article. RfCs on whether a source is reliable should be opened on WP:RSN. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Emigré55 (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated in the opening sentence, there was already a discussion at RSN. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have never accused User:Emigré55 of harassment, something he did repeatedly. Is it strange that I get grumpy? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In defence of Emigré55, and of myself, I like to state that at least initially I am the one that was "goaded" here, by User:The Banner. The disccusion concerning Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), more specifically Couwenbergh's blog as a source, started already in June at Anna van Egmont, after I had removed Emigré55's lengthy addition that I considered copyvio. As can be verified on the Talk page, we had some discussion, wherein I suggested a separate article on the painting be made, before in August Emigré55 returned with a considerably more balanced submission, saying that he was preparing the separate article I suggested. Now of course I knew the reference to Couwenbergh's, being published on a personal blog, was near the edge of reliability, but I was a bit impressed that Emigré55 after months had returned on the subject with a quite different, decent approach. I didn't feel like starting a quarrel over the source, especially since Couwenbergh's comparison made sense to me and drew my interest, but also because Emigré55 was a relatively new user that I didn't want to scare away.

A day later, The Banner, with whom I have quite a history on the Dutch Wikipedia, seemed to have gotten track of my activity on this project, and out of the blue he reffered to that shared history (which is why I think I can and even have to mention it here, I wouldn't have otherwise) in the midst of a discussion on ANI that he was not participating in, saying "This is a typical example of your battleground mentality that caused you so much trouble elsewhere." [He uses that expression, "battleground mentality", a lot: it must have made an impression when it was given as a reason for his last block; and of course it lays all the trouble at the opponent, basically clearing himself of said mentality; he has, by the way, similar catch phrases, notably where he baselessly accuses others of personally attacking him, always in a reflex to avoid accountability or explanation of his limited arguments]. If he had only wanted to give me a friendly warning, he could have done so on my Talk page, but he chose instead to try to publicly discredit me in that ANI discussion. His very next edit then was to remove Emigré55's fresh submission on Anna van Egmont, which I had more or less approved of. (Notice that he failed to remove the image of the painting that the removed text was about, leaving it in the article without any reference whatsoever, superfluously showing that The Banner wasn't really interested in the subject at all.) Then the six week discussion began, of course hopping over to the article on the painting, that was created soon after (which, consequently, is now devoid of a rather interesting view angle, but that discussion has been settled).

In the first days of the discussion that developed between Emigré55 and The Banner, I decided not to join it. That was partly because I hoped The Banner would lose interest if I kept quiet, and partly (not unconnected to the first) because I am nothing but traumatized by the conduct of The Banner, who played a significant role in my, still ongoing, September 2019 ban from the Dutch Wikipedia – I can request a revision of that ban coming November, and I have the very unpleasant feeling that The Banner would love to see nothing else than that I could be tricked into a ban here also, which then might help him getting me blocked from ever returning to the Dutch Wikipedia.

This is how, and not otherwise, this discussion started. Had I not, largely from trauma, jumped to the defence of Emigré55's case, not wanting The Banner to have yet again some sort of victory, while of course thinking Couwenbergh's comparison might be valuable, we would not be here. Talking about "goading", this is my view on it in this case, and it's a very, very sad story. Eissink (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC).
 * In fact, your are blocked for a breach of privacy. And I have nothing to do with that. I have also nothing to do with the fact that your appeal with de Dutch ArbCom failed (In Dutch: nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Deblokkade_Eissink). The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course you, falsely, try to silence the fact that the ArbCom didn't judge over the alleged breach of privacy (it wasn't). And of course you fail to acknowledge that your conduct was part of the fact that many considered me to be a nuisance that had to be taken care of. I'm not saying I could have responded in another manner when things got heated up, but you have contributed a lot to me being put in a false daylight, don't even try to deny it. And anyone in their clear mind would try to appeal a block at the day it was given, and not many succeed in getting such a block removed, it doesn't say or mean anything. But of course your reaction doesn't surprise me, because all you do now is once again trying to avoid accountability, by trying to remove the focus from you goading me here, which is exactly what you have been doing. Eissink (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC).
 * I am stunned to discover that User:The Banner has been blocked already 10 times, and in particular for harassment, but for very limited periods. Whereas harassment is exactly what I have been suffering from him for months now. His behaviour, together with the very negative turn of events concerning the contents of the disputed page, largely due to him and his relentless goading actions of others to this very aim too, has nearly killed my desire to further contribute to the encyclopaedia, as I was wrote it an in earlier post to one of the involved contributors, .--Emigré55 (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ow, I do not deny that my block log has something to do with my depressions. But as you can see is my last block from 5 years ago. So why you are contacting HJ Mitchell is a mystery to me. Unless you want to get me blocked because you fail to proof that the blog posts of Marc Couwenbergh are reliable sources and Marc Couwenbergh is a reputable (art) historian.
 * But I am not interested in your or Eissinks games and disruptive behaviour. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How dare you call my explanation of the sheer trauma that your haunting has inflected on me "games and disruptive behaviour"?! I ask administrators for a block of The Banner immediately. This accusation is crossing all lines. Eissink (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC).
 * And to be sure: I have nothing to do with The Banner's pre-2015 depressions (if he had any and not only stipulates them for the comfort of playing victim again), I joined Wikipedia not earlier than 2016, having the displeasure of encountering the person even later. Eissink (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC).
 * I would have preferred to stay out of this. I did not consider myself involved in this conduct dispute. I have, regrettably, gotten involved in a content dispute, and made an appeal for civility. To no avail, apparently. I urge all involved to return to improving content. Vexations (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible ongoing password hacking from 72.23.83.54
I got an email yesterday from a user who is involved in an SPI that a password reset attempt on their account was made from 72.23.83.54. Didn't think much of it until I saw today at Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody that the same IP tried that on as well. Just a heads up. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We do have LTAs (or may be this is just the same LTA) requesting the password reset just to annoy us. A couple of years ago, I got several hundred requests in one day, which clogged my echo notifications and for some period made them useless. However, if your password is secure (ideally, you are using TFA and a strong password), annoying you will be the only result of this exercise. If it is not secure enough, please make it secure irrespectively of the reset attempts.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , It wasn't my account; I was just sent email by the person whose account it was, seeking advice/assistance. I've alerted them to this thread off-line, but I'll leave it up to them whether they want to identify themselves.
 * I'm wondering, though, would blocking the IP prevent them from trying additional reset attempts? I'm guessing not. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone at #wikimedia-tech mentioned that a block with also email blocked would stop it a the abuser level. Someone else recommended enabling Enhanced Password Reset (meta:Community Tech/Password Reset Update) to protect oneself at the victim level (see mw:Help:Reset password). DMacks (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone at #wikimedia-tech mentioned that a block with also email blocked would stop it a the abuser level. Someone else recommended enabling Enhanced Password Reset (meta:Community Tech/Password Reset Update) to protect oneself at the victim level (see mw:Help:Reset password). DMacks (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Help/mentoring needed for uncommunicative editor


This is a contributor who specializes in doing maintenance work of a bot-like or repetitive nature. Specifically, they seem to primarily work in addressing dead links. The user clearly works hard and is trying to improve the encyclopedia, and is an asset to our encyclopedia, but is causing disruption by: (a) being very uncommunicative, (b) failing to use edit summaries or justify edits (this is a particular problem given the mass nature of the edits that the user makes, which create difficulty in reviewing the edits for problems), and (c) not demonstrating a commitment or even effort to prevent errors going forward. Examples of this disruption are all over the user's talk page, where numerous editors (including, , , , and ) have tried to communicate over months. Though I haven't had the time to go through the thousands of very minor edits made by the user, some recent representative examples of the kinds of edits that can go unnoticed within these mass changes include Special:Diff/979329087 and Special:Diff/978658384, which broke links in the article.

Of the thousands of edits that this user has made, only 19 are to talk pages; many of those are not true talk page posts, and even when the user is actually responding to a well-thought-out carefully-composed message the user presents a one-line response without punctuation or even capitalization.  In these edits the user has shown a disregard for other editors' time spent reviewing and correcting the user's problems.

I've tried to raise this with the user, but I have been repeatedly put off by the uncommunicative style of the user and am looking not for sanctions, but perhaps for a better approach to guiding or mentoring this user to maintain the work while reducing the disruption. To Cesternino: I want to emphasize that I am not starting this thread because I don't appreciate your work; rather, I'm trying to find a solution that will minimize the burden and disruption your edits create for other editors, while maintaining a space for you to make the productive contributions that you like. Any suggestions? Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think there is a gentle, kindly way to get this guy's attention: his handful of responses over the months have been of the "what do you mean" "i didn't do nuttin" barely literate sullen type. I doubt ANI will get his attention any more than anyone else has.  If he's continuing his antics -- the most obnoxious of which is fiddling with margins and links on other editors' user pages -- then the only way left is the cluebat.  Slap a block on him, with a "We will remove this when you begin to meaningfully communicate with us" tag.   Ravenswing      12:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Has been editing for nearly 7 months, with not an edit summary in sight, zero communication (or jackass communication). This editor clearly needs an attention-getting block until he (A) starts using edit summaries on all of his edits and (B) communicates collaboratively whenever the situation requires it (which includes when he receives messages on his usertalk page). Until he does both of those things, he lacks the competence to remain on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like is genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia pages, but is acting in a "sloppy" way that others are finding very unhelpful, and they are failing to listen, understand and/or act on the advice given. Just one small example: I note, after repeated requests, that they have still used WP:EDITSUMMARIES in just 12 of their 1,600+ edits (0.7%). Hopefully, they will respond here and agree to improve their editing patterns. But if not, a short block to avoid further disruption might serve as notice that many editors have politely asked for improvements, and that they do need to undertake to address this. If it helps them, I'm sure a few bulleted requirements for improvement could be highlighted on their talk page for them to agree to address if they want to then be unblocked and continue contributing. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no view on the issues described above, but my only post on Cesternino's talk page was to leave a copy of uw-tilde, to which I expected no response. To cite that as an example of disruption by Cesternino is at best misleading. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm blocking until Cesternino can coherently explain what's wrong with editing in this manner and what he'll do differently if unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think this is a genuine troll. Editing other people's userpages (24 so far: ), and when politely asked to desist says "oops sorry" and "what do you mean" . Makes trollish edits to Wikipedia-space pages (36 so far: ), and when politely asked to desist says "Are you joking i am trying to stay out of trouble" . And so on with every trollish edit he is questioned about on his talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "but why is my edits Disruptive" (on TP; post-block, unsigned, and [sic]) is not an encouraging sign, in several ways. Narky Blert (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not, especially since I think my rationale was fairly straightforward. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Ecotrustcanada editing article Ecotrust Canada
Wearing the conflict of interest on your sleeve does not make it excusable. 1Veertje (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should post it at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought it highly likely that the user, having only relatively recently resumed editing Wikipedia after a break since 2008, is entirely unaware of current COI policy. Why the rush to bring it here, rather than discussing it with them? 2A00:23C7:B701:A101:47C:AB36:2E33:C1B6 (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There should be a username block in here given the user name and the article being edited are one and the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B04B:66F:8CC1:9A26:E781:DC16 (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The username should probably be considered grandfathered, as the username policy when the account was created in 2008 was "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended." It's still a COI, though.  They could be asked to voluntarily change their name.  I'm wondering if shared use is a possibility, though, until recently they had not edited since 2008. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I came to the same thoughts on the possibility of it being shared independently and so have explicitly asked them whether they are the same editor, and asked them to register a new account if they aren't. Note that the editor edited in May and June and hasn't edited since then. So there's a reasonable chance there will be no response for a long time. Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Experienced user pretending to be new
The user account User:Transcendental36 was registered just 18 days ago, on 25 September. However, whoever is operating it is very obviously not a new user. This seems to me the clearest illustration of that, posted just ten days after the account was registered:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=982002875

The following posts further demonstrate that this is someone who has been editing for quite some time:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=981172171
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lech_Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa&diff=prev&oldid=981296078
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=981978133
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=982168293

For someone clearly very familiar with Wikipedia to pretend to be a new user is troubling. Furthermore, they have done literally nothing in article space other than revert people. It is absurd for an account just days old with no substantive contributions at all to be lecturing other people. I find their behaviour extremely suspicious, and suggest that this should be investigated. 109.144.22.42 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You'd need more than just – new account, experienced editor. There is WP:VALIDALT (includes WP:FRESHSTART) and one does not need an account to accumulate experience. You say "pretending to be new" but which diff exactly has the editor denying any prior experience with Wikipedia? It appears to me that they have yet to be asked. Without a demonstrated problem, WP:NOFISHING applies, or it should. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just would like to point out that a previous LTA IP began the same topic on my talk page. Here's the IP's talk page in question. I'd suggest anyone familiar with WP:BKFIP to take a look into this new IP, as they have taken an interest in my account. Transcendental36 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if nobody's asked, let me be the first: are you a new account, or are you an alt of someone who's been on here for a while? jp×g 06:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe they have to answer that, unless there are diffs showing block/tban evasion, or socking evidence. However, they can answer if they want to. I'm more interested in knowing the IP's relation to this mess, and why they're bringing week-old diffs here regarding this editor. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't mind answering that, as I have when this was brought up previously. I'd like to put on the record that this is the first account that I've created. What knowledge I know on Wikipedia's policies have been from actually reading them, and lurking on ANI, Help Desk, TeaHouse, etc. I do not claim to be an expert by any means, and I encourage everyone to look into my contribution history for any mistakes that I have made so far so that I may improve as a contributor. I made the mistake of reverting one of the LTA's contributions while on recent changes patrol, and got barraged with talk messages from him stating that I was too inexperienced to be fighting vandalism. I believe that this thread is going against WP:DENY though so I'm hesitant on how I should move forward with this. Thanks, Transcendental36 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Came across this while scrolling. You have every right to fight vandalism of this encyclopedia anywhere you find it. I am watching over 250 pages right now. I'm not leaving it to a bot to fight vandalism and whether you are new or not is irrelevant. You made a mistake. We all do. BE BOLD!! As far as the topic of conversation above it goes, it is ridiculous. You have done nothing wrong by studying and cautiously watching how to do things. I tend to jump in with both feet so I can admire a studious individual and the quality editor you are aspiring to be. We may disagree on policy, guideline and opinion in the future but anyone secure in their views welcomes the challenge. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your kind words mean a lot to me. To provide some backstory on the revert I made, here it is in all it's glory. I have nothing to hide, and am gladly willing to accept advice from those who also wish to make Wikipedia a better place. Best, Transcendental36 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We now have the explicit denial of previous experience that somebody requested. Telling other users how to edit when you have no editing experience at all would be quite astonishingly arrogant, but it is obvious that this is not somebody with just 19 days of Wikipedia experience. It is odd that they have received vocal support from an account registered only a few weeks before their own. There are many red flags here. 109.144.216.14 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm really not seeing any problem here. An editor may have edited for years before registering an account. I've welcomed Trancendental36 and wish them well with their editing. Suggest this discussion is closed. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock trying to game ECP status
I starting seeing edits from on various Indian actor articles, using the IABot to archive sources. Their first 10 edits were to random articles, and they started this run of IABot edits. The account was created on September 30, so wouldn't be able to get ECP today, but there's no doubt they are trying to game the system. This is similar to recent socks of who did the same trick -, also on Indian film actor articles. I don't know if this is PC07, but it's definitely an account to watch for suspicious activity.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect the same. Was going to open an SPI. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I thought about that as well. I thought I'd WP:AGF about the sock, but the obvious gaming of ECP continues, they're just over 200 edits at this point, nearly all with IABot.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't stop it seems. Now at 280 edits. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now at 370+ edits. They have been blowing up my watchlist all day, which usually reserved just for . :) S0091 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , 480 now, and nary a word from an admin here. We may find out from whom this is the latest sock.  Ravensfire  (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to admire their dedication, having been at this for 12 hours now. And this report has been ignored by admins for over 5 hours. Even a simple "Ignore them, no harm, no foul" would have at least told us it's been seen and blown off.   Ravensfire  (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ECP is hard to game. I'm personally inclined to ignore it, and be in position to block as soon as they start doing shifty things on ECP articles at the end of the month. If this user is trying to game extended-confirmed, I'd much rather waste a month of their time as long as the gaming edits aren't harmful in and of themselves. ~ mazca  talk 10:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This looks incredibly suspicious. They made exactly 10 edits on October 1 like 'neighboring' to 'neighbouring' (claiming to be fixing typos, but really violating ENGVAR), appearing to try to game autoconfirmed.  Then this.  It would be too much to assume they want to say something about Death of Sushant Singh Rajput, but they're clearly up to something.  Fortunately, they won't get ECP until the end of the month.  With 14 straight hours of this, we may have an unauthorized bot used here as well. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , 860 now. Really annoying considering a good amount of these articles show up in my huge watchlist. All these in the last 24 hours, definitely a bot - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to sieve out the archives of the live urls in articles from the dead ones in the articles, but it is getting extremely tedious. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All suspicious aspects aside (and I agree it's kinda suspicious) these edits do appear to be broadly helpful, even if they're clogging your watchlist (and I do see you do a lot of good work in these heavily-socked topic areas, it's appreciated.). The edits are slow enough that it doesn't look like unauthorised automated edits, although doing it for this long does feel unhealthy. ~ mazca  talk 10:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's who I think it is (PC07), it's a PR firm that's been trying to white-wash a specific article for a while. While boring, if you're getting paid to pull up either a List of ... article or certain category and click the "Fix dead links" link over and over, hey, just put something up in a different browser window.  Most of these edits didn't find any dead links, so the value is questionable.  No worries, obviously the advice it to just ignore this.  We'll see the disruption in 17-18 days from this account.  Sigh.  Not even a formal warning given to them over this..  Why do I bother?  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Apart from the first hour when the rate was somewhat slower: from midday yesterday, they were 'editing' at a more or less constant rate of 47.2+ articles per hour for over 18 straight hours (yes: over eighteen hours), stopping at around 6:30 this morning. They have clearly stopped once the required 500 edits for ECP status was exceeded (though weren't actually watching at what point this happened). There is no way that anyone can believe that this is anything other than an unauthorised bot at work which was not programmed to stop at the 500th edit. After all: the account owner presumably has to eat, sleep and go to the bathroom within the time frame,  but a bot has no such requirements. 86.164.169.96 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Just had a closer look at the 'edits'. They are in two tranches each of which is immediately consecutive (does not interrupt the 47.2+/hour rhythm at all). For both tranches, the edited articles are in exact alphabetical order meaning that an article list has been used to feed the bot. The first tranche runs from A-Z, the second from A-M. The second tranche is larger than the first. 86.164.169.96 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * is a pretty close (though not exact) match to the last sock.  There are a couple more accounts on the same IP range that seem a bit suspicious, but they haven't edited yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you! I actually had a reminder setup to watch this account on the 30th when they hit ECP status.  Appreciate you stopping the disruption before it happened.  Ravensfire  (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Amkgp is falsely accusing me of vandalism threatens block
On the Dilip Ghosh (politician) page, I rescued some key incidents some of which have received a very high level of media coverage and have been quietly scratched one after the other over the past few months by User:Manasbose.. Shortly after I did this, User:Amkgp deleted it and accused me of vandalism and threatened block in my talk.. I asked him to delete content which were WP:NOTNEWS. . Instead, he again accused me of disruption without any justification.. ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Its was clearly never a threat and I am not entitled to block someone here. It was a warning notice only. The editor never tried to engage in a discussion either at my talk-page nor at Talk:Dilip Ghosh (politician) to resolve the issue as per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and prematurely went ahead to report. I restored to a previous accepted version only on basis of WP:NOTNEWS policy.  ~ Amkgp  💬  06:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't check much of the text you added at the article, but the small amount I looked at is typical gotcha nonsense ("he stirred up a controversy", "He also courted controversy", "he courted yet another controversy" and more). The article should be reported at WP:BLPN but too much junk is added daily in some topics for effective article development these days. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, WP:EXCESSDETAIL applies here. That's why I reverted those things. The list of 'controversies' seems too much for the article to remain encyclopedic. The editor who has complained here has also not edited nothing beyond Dilip Ghosh (politician). It seems more of an WP:SPA here.  ~ Amkgp  💬  06:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , a couple of disturbing, WP:BITEy things are on display here. 1) Vandalism is not a catchall term for any edit you disagree with. Please refrain from accusing any editors of vandalism when they are adding good faith content, even if it violates policy. 2) A new editor whose first set of edits on their first day of editing all build on each other on a single article is not in any way, shape or form SPA. It is absolutely unconscionable that a new editor has to come to ANI in their first half dozen edits because they were bit so badly. In the future, please engage constructively with other editors, especially newbies, instead of throwing around ridiculous accusations. User <insert Odia text here> is neither a vandal nor an SPA. They certainly need help in contributing within policy, but absolutely nothing you have done has helped in the slightest. VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">cont 10:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This report feels premature & irrelevant. It was a content dispute that could have been discussed at the talk page of the article in question. Celestina007 (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - why did you use a warning for vandalism? It's made very clear that vandalism is only for wilful attempts to hurt Wikipedia, which do not seem to be the case here. Celestina, it was a content dispute but the seemingly bitey warnings are not content, and so it's not just a "boot back to content talk page, no conduct considerations" issue Nosebagbear (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Its indeed an error regarding warning. I should have used uw-disruptive3 instead of uw-vandalism3. But the editor  never engaged in a dispute resolution. I felt Dilip_Ghosh_(politician) is WP:EXCESSDETAIL and well within WP:NOTNEWS.
 * I believe as per accusing editor that rescued some key incidents some of which have received a very high level of media coverage and have been quietly scratched one after the other over the past few months by by  was done in accordance with point no 4 in WP:NOTNEWS  that says Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are and point no 2 While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style.. So, I went ahead to restore the previous version. See the diff  ~ Amkgp  💬  14:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:BITE, I will certainly keep in mind as suggested by all editors here next time onwards. Thanks everyone for your inputs regarding things that could have been done from my side as an experienced editor for a better conduct. ~ Amkgp  💬  14:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't removed those key incidents entirely but trimmed and merged them in one paragraph to make it more encyclopedic. As and  already mentioned, as per WP:NOTNEWS, every details (date, place, quote, etc) of every "incident" is not encyclopedic. And in this case, those "incidents" are comments by the subject in political rallies. --   Manasbose   (<b style="color:blue">talk</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">contribs</b>) 15:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't removed those key incidents entirely but trimmed and merged them in one paragraph to make it more encyclopedic. As and  already mentioned, as per WP:NOTNEWS, every details (date, place, quote, etc) of every "incident" is not encyclopedic. And in this case, those "incidents" are comments by the subject in political rallies. --   Manasbose   (<b style="color:blue">talk</b> &#124; <b style="color:blue">contribs</b>) 15:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Continued disruption by user:Onetwothreeip and user:Guy Macon


This is a continuation of an above discussion that was closed out of an abundance of good faith that the behavior would cease. It has not.


 * Onetwothreeip continues disruptive editing after mulitple ANI discussions


 * Onetwothreeip's first edit to the article, while it was on featured on our frontpage, was to delete an entire section of well-cited text. This was an inauspicious start to say the least.
 * Removes section heading despite talk page consensus for it.]
 * Again removes section heading
 * Yet again removes section heading
 * Reported to ANI, editor claims misunderstanding,   ANI topic voluntarily withdrawn per WP:AGF ( or maybe WP:ROPE )
 * given final warning, receipt of warning
 * Deletion of references, WP:BATTLEGROUND
 * yet again deletes section headings
 * again removes headings, additional deletion of sourced content, potentially misleading edit summary
 * deletes sourced content (party affiliations) yet again


 * Onetwothreeip continues tendentiously proposing change in multiple talk sections, claims false consensus, editwars accordingly
 * objects to headings on talk
 * "can we all agree" to remove section headings? in second section of talk
 * "can we all agree" in now a third section of talk
 * "I will be carrying that out" despite knowing deletion is controversial
 * "Given that nobody seems to disagree"  despite widspread disagreement
 * "If you objected, you should have said so on the talk page here" despite repeated objections in other sections of talk


 * Onetwothreeip's proposed change has been repeatedly rejected:
 * TheMusicExperimental
 * Feofer
 * KinkyLipids
 * Muboshgu


 * Onetwothreeip's behavior problems are not limited to one article
 * Extensive discussion of Onetwothreeip's long history of controversial and disruptive edits entirely predating their interactions on this article.


 * Guy Macon is reverting all constructive edits to the article (even wikimarkup fixes), effectively imposing a de facto full protect.
 * reverts constructive edits without prior criticism or expressing his own criticism of the content
 * again reverts constructive edits without prior criticism or expressing his own criticism of the content
 * yet again reverts constructive edits, now rudely: "If you can't grasp a simple concept ... you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia"]
 * attempts to unilaterally impose topic-ban without authority  "I hereby revoke your license to decide all by yourself that your edits are believed to be uncontroversial New rule: at least for now you need to ask first"
 * Guy attempts to close a discussion, despite himself being the subject under discussion. "This isn't ANI.  Take your complaints about other users there"
 * Deletes entire discussion from talk, despite himself being the subject under discussion. Threatens block. "Is this really what you want to get blocked over? Want a list of users who have been blocked for complaining about other editors on article talk pages instead of at ANI?"
 * edit warring now with third deletion of discussion, despite himself being the subject under discussion. "What part of "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White House COVID-19 outbreak article" (it's at the top of the page) do you think doesn't apply to you?"
 * Goes full battleground and flatly refuses to discuss any of the proposed changes. "I see no point in responding to any further edit requests".
 * When User:KinkyLipids issues a warning to Guy for incivility, Guy deletes KinkyLipid's comment outright.
 * Disputes CNN as reliable source: "The only actual medical expert cited said the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus".

The December 2019 ANI discussion about Onetwothreeip involved disruptive edits to the article Donald Trump, while the subsequent ANI discussions have involved disruptive edits to the article White House COVID-19 outbreak. Perhaps a topic ban from Trump-related would resolve the on-going behavior problem? Feoffer (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I stepped in when I saw these two edit warring. As far as I can tell nobody has evaluated the changes they are edit warring about for quality, so the "consensus" is 1:1. I simply don't see anyone supporting or opposing either side here. So, were Onetwothreeip's changes an improvement? I say yes, but that's an opinion about article content and ANI only deals with user behavior.


 * To address the edit warring I did two things.
 * First, I restored the last version before the edit war this is a standard and non-controversial way of dealing with edit wars. See WP:STATUSQUO.
 * Edit summary was "Restored 02:11, 11 October 2020 version (last version before the edit war) If I see either of you edit warring again we will be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI Take it to talk and seek consensus instead of repeatedly editing and reverting."
 * Second, based up my personal judgement only, I did my best to roll back in the header reorg while leaving out any content change.
 * Edit summary was "WP:BOLDLY restoring Onetwothreeip's header reorganization because I think it was an improvement. If anyone other than Feoffer thinks that the changes weren't an improvement, feel free to revert and we can talk about it on the article talk page. Onetwothreeip, please leave it alone even if Feoffer reverts again. Let other editors deal with this."


 * I have no opinion about any past behavior by either party. I only looked at the current edit war. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Shortly after the above, where I warned both parties to stop edit warring, Feoffer made twelve rapid edits, with summaries like "restore changes believed to be completely uncontroversial". So I asked Onetwothreeip. They do not agree and think "most of their edits to have serious WP:POV issues". This puts Onetwothreeip in a bad position. If they revert what they see as edits with POV problems they are ignoring my warning about edit warring. If they don't, then Feoffer has gamed the system and is completely ignoring my warning to "Take it to talk and seek consensus instead of repeatedly editing and reverting." As I see it, Onetwothreeip is following my advice to step back and avoid making edits that Feoffer is likely to object to, but Feoffer is unwilling to take it to talk and avoid making edits that Onetwothreeip is likely to object to.
 * Again, I must emphasize that I am only commenting on the edit warring that I rolled back and the refusal to take the content dispute to talk. I have no opinion on any accusations of other misbehavior, because I haven't looked at the evidence myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would push back against the idea that this is a straightforward two-party edit-war.  Onetwothreeip has made many, many controversial edits, some wholesale deletions of sourced text. Before coming to this article, Onetwothreeip had already garnered quite a long history of complaints about their "bull in a china shop" editing style.
 * And yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so it's only natural that we'd like to have a few bulls in our china shop -- but if we're going to do that, we have to extend that same latitude to the china shopkeepers to deal with unruly bulls :) . Feoffer (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By "many, many controversial edits", you mean edits that you disagree with. "Wholesale deletions of sourced text" means recently added bold content which I removed, asserting that the content did not belong in the article or was not sufficiently neutral.
 * The simple matter of this dispute is that you organised the article in a certain way (with no particular talk page consensus), I made some reorganisations from that, and you reverted my changes. I took it to the talk page where I found there to be consensus and lack of opposition for at least some of the changes I proposed. I declared on the talk page that I found this to be the case, waited some time for any opposition to come forward (including yourself), and made some of the changes for which I found there was consensus/no opposition for. Meanwhile you were involved in edit warring other changes with at least one other editor. I mostly preferred the other party's edits, so that was sufficient drama for you to bring this here.
 * It's quite clear that you feel that removing content is much more serious than adding content, and particularly disruptive when it's your content being removed, even when it's content that was added boldly. Ever since you reverted my edits on the second day as I have now described, I realised that pursuing this myself would only result in you reverting any other changes I make, so I decided to leave it up to any other editors to decide which of my edits if any to action into the article, and that is what I intend for the time being. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You didn't withdraw the previous ANI report, it was just closed shortly after you created it. Any content I ever removed was recently added bold content, so let's not mislead people on that point. I'm pretty sure my first edits were changes to the table, but that's not relevant. I had merged some sections, not simply "removing section headings", and you had not notified me (nor had anyone else) of opposition to that until that ANI report. They seem to be restored in a way that intentionally didn't provide me with any notifications, but that's an old issue at this point.
 * This report is obviously in retaliation to my appeal to Feoffer to cease their edit warring and violation of 1RR here, and 's intervention here, which effectively overruled some of Feoffer's edits. That discussion showed that while there were some editors who opposed changing section headings to more neutral ones as I proposed, Feoffer was the only one opposing the reduction of the amount of sections overall. I decided to carry out a fairly minimalist version of that, but Feoffer reverted this. It can be clearly shown that I asserted not wanting to revert their revert.
 * Feoffer has shown very concerning WP:OWN behaviour throughout the life of this article, often claiming without evidence or referring to anything that there is widespread disagreement of what they disagree with, or widespread agreement of what they agree with. This has included alluding to other discussions, but also claiming that as the article has a few thousand edits, this constitutes a "review process" which validates their additions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Shortly after Guy Macon's comments here, Feoffer removed this comment of theirs praising Guy Macon, and changed the heading to include Guy Macon, when originally it was just me they were accusing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

In this edit: added me to this ANI report without the required notification on my talk page.

I am really having trouble understanding why Feoffer refuses to go to the article talk page, propose a change, and talk it over with the other editors. This business of refusing to WP:TALKDONTREVERT needs to stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well he started taking it to talk. He did it with edit requests instead of just talking, but oh well. At least he is finally talking.
 * I just responded to two of the edit requests, and they speak to the claim that his edits are completely uncontroversial and unopposed.
 * The first one I answered is is here: Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak
 * Completely uncontroversial, so I fixed it.
 * The second one I answered is is here: Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak
 * Extremely bad edit. The claim doesn't even come close to matching the source. There are plenty of legitimate things that Trump has done to criticise without making stuff up. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seven Nine edit requests have been made on talk, only one has been objected to. This backlog represents an an on-going disruption to our project, likely to prove some political point. Feoffer (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You failing to immediately get your way is not "on-going disruption to our project." The reason I stopped at the second request is your reaction after I identified your "uncontroversial" edit as being extremely controversial and low quality. Low quality to the point of being factually incorrect. To be specific, you started with a source that says "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus." and used it to support the claim "According to medical experts, Trump was potentially infectious during the speech" That's the exact opposite of what the only medical expert cited said. I see no point in responding to any further edit requests only to get another WP:IDHT response. Fortunately, other editors with more patience than I have are responding to your edit requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm not exactly impressed with your edits and behavior on the article. At first glance, it seems your editing is what is causing disruption, including a flood of edit requests and a combative behavior. We aren't a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia, meaning it is better to have less information that is correct, rather than rush "to press" with whatever we have.  I haven't looked at all of it, but what I've seen so far, and what sticks out the most, is a bludgeoning by you. This doesn't mean there isn't blame to go around, I just haven't gotten to that, so I don't know.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've tried my best to add only constructive edits and never to reinstate changes I knew to be opposed by multiple users. I'm taken aback by your impression that the edit requests were "combative" -- I sincerely believed proposing those changes on talk was bending over backwards in support of civility.    Feoffer (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was going to comment on this aspect, many of the removals by Onetwothreeip are things that are speculative elements from the media, which for us would be against NOT#CRYSTAL and weakly violating BLP, but not to the point they would be edit warring exceptions. There's no reason to run with media speculation in our current event articles at all. --M asem (t) 13:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't claim to have any edit warring exceptions. After initial reverts by Feoffer I made smaller edits based on talk page discussions, but then those were reverted too so it became obvious to me that this was going nowhere and stopped making edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Propose boomerang
IMO Foeffer has gone off the rails at the article White House COVID-19 outbreak, and deserves at least at topic ban if not a block. Guy Macon said no to one of his unjustified edit requests, and Foeffer proceeded into a prolonged argument, capped with this insulting and over-the-top reply. I am involved at that article (although not in the current dustup) so this is just a suggestion; I request others to evaluate the situation and take action. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * At all points, I have attempted to be constructive, to not reinstate changes I knew to be controversial among multiple users, and to be a pinnacle of civility.
 * In contrast, Guy shown me rank incivility. He said my edits suck. He said I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia].  After he was repeatedly warned for incivility to me, he just repeatedly deleted the warnings, editwarring repeatedly to remove their warnings.  In response his insults, I merely cited No angry mastodons.   I was shown incivility and I turned the other cheek, responding by merely quoting an established essay -- if that's incivil, the Mastodons essay needs to  be removed so others don't make the same mistake.     Feoffer (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for saying that your edits suck. Let me rephrase: your edits contain factual errors such as calling a single CNN political reporter "medical experts" and ignoring the citation where an actual medical expert says the exact opposite of your claim. I hope this helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have added that after Feoffer posted a dozen or so of his proposed edits as edit requests, he has argued vigorously, and repeatedly, with anyone who disagrees with the proposed edit. He has also claimed that consensus should have been required to remove the edits, rather than the normal understanding that if an edit is challenged, consensus is required to restore it. Example: BRD means you can undo new changes, not that you can show up to existing articles and delete anything you find objectionable and demand consensus to return to status quo. That's not how it works, and if you think it is, you'll just keeping being a bull in a china shop. BTW it looks to me as if all the edits he is talking about were added to the article by him within the past week - most within the past 24 hours. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dig deeper into the discussion -- we're talking about material ("amid secrecy") that was not added by me and far predated One's involvement, not stuff I just added.   Feoffer (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support a topic ban or partial block of Feoffer from the article and talk page I just answered the remaining, inappropriate use of the edit request template. I'm often not a fan of a lot of stuff Guy Macon does, and I have not looked into what they did here. But whatever Guy Macon has done wrong, it does not excuse Feoffer's completely inappropriate edits. If Feoffer feels their proposed changes need more discussion, they are free to open talk page discussions and seek consensus. Once there is consensus, they or anyone else who is able to make the changes should do so. They should not only use the edit request template if no one there is able to make the chance since it's intended for changes an editor cannot make for technical reasons where there is existing consensus or they expect no objection. If they open a discussion because they fear there may be objection, then clearly this doesn't apply, and there's also no reason to make an edit request when they can make the change themselves anyway. In other words, either open a talk page discussion to seek consensus, or make an edit request, don't try and do both. Feoffer is an experienced editor so they must know this and so their WP:POINTY response is inexcusable whatever Guy Macon has allegedly done wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Macon decreed I would not edit the article anymore, even boldly.  I attempted to comply, and sincerely am surprised that anyone found my edit requests unwelcome.  I have respectfully switched to self-reverting over being bold. If my edits are suboptimal, I will note Guy has been quite rude to me, openly mocking me and saying i shouldn't be on wikipeida, edit warring with me on talk, removing my rfc, posting memes to ridicule others, and otherwise interfering with the usual channels for seeking assistance.  This behavior has been utterly unprecedented in my editing experience and I admit to being at a loss as to how to solicit more eyes to the content dispute while being openly abused by a vested contributor.       Feoffer (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * More claims that are factually untrue. Refactoring something that is falsely called an RfC but is actually a talk page comment without any of the usual RfC formatting -- without altering the actual content - is not "removing". Giving an editor who is having trouble understanding wikipedia good advice is not "mocking". Telling someone that they missed a joke is not "ridicule". And Feoffer has been the exact opposite of "respectful". I am being subjected to a fair amount of abuse here, and all because I insisted that the claim must be supported by the source, and that the claim should not say the exact opposite of the source. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Feoffer trying to round up a lynch mob: -Guy Macon (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I propose a one year topic by for Feoffer from the area of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), broadly construed.

 * DS Alert #1:
 * DS Alert #2:

While their general combativeness and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is a concern, and while their refusal to follow repeated instructions on how to format their comments without tacking on inappropriate RfC and edit request templates are a concern, I do not consider those as justifying a topic ban.

What does justify a topic ban is the repeated insertion of dubious claims about Covid-19. In they make an "According to medical experts" claim that is directly contradicted by the sources they cite in the same edit. In they request that we add [ http://www.whcovidtrack.com/ ] which is "A crowd-sourced database tracking the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak within the administration". Their other edits suggest that they are starting with info from whcovidtrack.com and then looking for sources that they can tack on to support the claims. To make things worse, when other editors object they dig in their heels, insist that they are always right, insist that everyone agrees with them, and attack anyone who opposes them. This is disrupting the effort to improve a fast moving medical article with political implications. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In re: "edits suggest that they are starting with info from whcovidtrack.com ...", FYI, that isn't my workflow at all.  Not sure if that site even existed at the time this article created -- it'd be more likely that they copied us than the other way round. Feoffer (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

On the underlying dispute
I propose: This is a politically charged article with three weeks left to probably the most contentious US election in living memory. Disruption is inevitable and full protection with edits via editprotected may be a better solution. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus required restriction for
 * If this has a deadline, then I would agree with it. Say, 6 months tops.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need for any restrictions related to the current election being needed after the end of January. Right now, we are seeing an extreme amount of disruption. So either Consensus required restriction or full protection would seem to be needed.
 * Oh, for those simpler, more civil days when US politicians went out in the woods and shot at each other with pistols... We could have had President Gabbard. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am here for this. Yes, a Jan 20 end date would be fine. And we should have a low bar to applying this more widely. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for anything this extreme. Full-protection/consensus-only would be overkill. The article gets a lot of editing that is constructive updating, we should not shut that down. The article has been under semi-protection which just expired; I keep an eye on the article and will restore semi-protection if it is needed. I doubt if EC will be needed but it remains an option. There was some recent edit warring so maybe a 1RR restriction would be more to the point. But personally I don't think this article needs to be handled any more drastically than dozens of other politically hot articles right now. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. In the 24 hours since semi-protection expired, there has been no edit warring (this discussion is probably helping with that) and no disruptive editing. There was just one edit by an IP, which was constructive but unsourced; it was reverted but promptly restored with a source. In other words I'm not seen any kind of editing emergency here. And there are multiple admin eyes on the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Guy Macon
I was previously able to have a civil discussion with Guy Macon (hereafter referred to with the singular they/them) on the article on the White House COVID-19 outbreak. Then this morning, after they were involved in a dispute with a 3rd editor (Feoffer), I spoke with Feoffer about the situation of Feoffer posting multiple edit requests on the article talk page because Guy Macon told Feoffer to "ask first" before making any edits. The additions to the talk page seemed to take attention away from more-productive content discussions, so I referred to this situation between Feoffer and Guy Macon as "silly". Guy Macon replied to my comment with a link to an external attack for the purpose of attacking me.

This response was surprising. Because such personal attacks, if continued, could eventually result in a block, I posted the appropriate 1st-level warning template on Guy Macon's talk page. I take care when using warning templates, normally avoiding them, and I was careful to match the heading with the tone of the template and to end it politely. I also noted on the article talk page that it was their second instance of incivility that I'm aware of. (I had previously warned them with a personal message reminding them about civility after they said that one of Feoffer's edit proposals "completely sucked". They responded to my reminder by saying that their comment was "accurate".) They replied to my warning message on their talk page by using my "this is silly" comment in order to justify explicitly attacking me again, their third instance of incivility. In trying to understand their change in behavior, I think their dispute with Feoffer might have led to a misunderstanding of the meaning of my comment, causing them to attack me as well.

I then added the standard 2nd-level warning message to Guy Macon's talk page. They replied on my talk page saying, "Please don't post to my talk page and please don't ping me. Feel free to report me to ANI". I then noticed that they deleted my comments from the article talk page, arguing that incivility cannot be pointed out at all in talk pages and that any incivility must be reported directly up to ANI. I think that starting with a short personal reminder and then a longer warning on the article talk page was proper. I consider posting here to be a last resort. I also think my comments were improperly deleted and should be reinstated. Because of everything described, I am posting here in ANI, but the warning message for posting to ANI says I must notify them on their user talk page. In light of this requirement and WP:UP and WP:NOBAN, I will add the standard notification to their talk page but will refrain from any comments of my own. Thank you. —KinkyLipids (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The sum total of my "personal attack" consisted of this:
 * Whoosh!
 * I apologize for saying that KinkyLipids failed to get the joke. I did not think "you failed to get the joke" was a personal attack, but if KinkyLipids thinks it was, then I will accept that and never say that to them again. I had already decided to no longer interact with KinkyLipids in any way, and would appreciate being treated the same way.
 * I would also point out that it is a False dilemma to claim that the only possible places to complain about user behavior are ANI and a busy article talk page. A third alternative exists; complaining about their behavior on their user talk page. As it says at the top of Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White House COVID-19 outbreak article" --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, Guy Macon made multiple personal attacks, and I did go to their user talk page before coming here to ANI, after which they deleted my comments on their talk page and told me to go to ANI instead. Then they said on my talk page that is was "highly inappropriate" for me to have done what they are now suggesting I should have done. They then told me that they have no interest in interacting with me, while also suggesting that I should report them to ANI, and then they interacted with my comments on the article talk page by deleting them. It was unacceptable to quote me out of context to give the impression that I said something I didn't say, and it is unacceptable now that they are lying about what happened.
 * I found another edit in which Guy Macon suggested that Feoffer has "trouble understanding". This is in violation of WP:CIVIL: "avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with". It also violated WP:AVOIDYOU: "arguments should not be personalized". In another edit, Guy Macon says that if Feoffer "can't grasp a simple concept", then Feoffer "shouldn't be editing Wikipedia". This is uncivil, aggressive, and snide, in violation of WP:ESDONTS, and it is belittling a fellow editor in violation of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Taken together, each individual comment is part of a larger pattern of uncivil personal attacks. —KinkyLipids (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * after looking at most of the diffs you posted, I didn't see anything sanctionable (which is why I stopped). I think you are being way too sensitive, which is never a good idea on the internet.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reading. I'm sorry it was long. I'm new to ANI and missed the instruction to "be brief" and the separate instruction page saying to frame the issue as a question. Next time, I will do so. —KinkyLipids (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Guy Macon can be abrupt. I do not like him erasing your comment and then being cavalier with a "take it to ANI" statement. I suspect he knows he will have enough help here from regulars. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This precisely.  The project simply doesn't if we allow people to repeatedly delete complaints about their own behavior. Feoffer (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "Woosh" is a meme that simply means a joke has gone over your head. If you did not understand this, Guy provided a literal link to knowyourmeme, which is literally a site that explains memes for people who don't understand them. It's not an external "attack page". What you should have taken from that comment was the inherent implication that Guy made a joke that went over your head, and by providing the link he was making sure you understood that that was what he was saying. Starting a new thread here, over this, when there is already an open thread about Guy is a bit odd. Every subsequent diff of "incivility" is pretty much just Guy further explaining that he was saying that he made a joke that went over your head. I don't know why you're even wasting our time with this. ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually I expect no "help from the regulars". I don't know how many times I have said this, but let me say it again: if any administrator or veteran editor wants to go to my talk page and ask me to stop doing something, I will stop immediately and start discussing the issue even if I disagree. Please, don't "help" me unless you see no violation. If I am doing something wrong tell me and I will stop.
 * The whole idea of "take it to ANI" is that when somebody is repeatedly and aggressively accusing me of violating Wikipedia's core policies, and doing it on a busy talk page where I just happen to be discussing a content dispute with another editor, there is a high probability that they are doing so in an attempt to give the other person ammunition in their own accusations of wrongdoing, which is exactly what happened in this case. If the accusations are not sincere, they are unlikely to go to ANI with them.
 * On the other hand, I may have gone too far and I just don't see it, in which case I want an administrator or veteran editor to ask me to stop (see above).
 * Either way, making public accusations of blockable offenses on an article talk page is disruptive to the goal of improving the page.
 * As for deleting the comment, I had previously responded with an explanation that I was joking and that we don't actually have licenses that can be revoked. That response was deleted. It isn't fair to allow one person to make accusations but not let the accused reply. Nonetheless, at over 14,000 edits since 2013 Lightburst fits my criteria for a veteran editor and they asked me to stop deleting KinkyLipids comments even if I believe that they disrupt the article talk page, so as per my promise, I will stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As for deleting the comment, I had previously responded with an explanation that I was joking and that we don't actually have licenses that can be revoked. That response was deleted. It isn't fair to allow one person to make accusations but not let the accused reply. Nonetheless, at over 14,000 edits since 2013 Lightburst fits my criteria for a veteran editor and they asked me to stop deleting KinkyLipids comments even if I believe that they disrupt the article talk page, so as per my promise, I will stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I wasn't egging Guy Macon on to give "ammunition". I asked Guy Mason to stop, and they replied by repeating what I asked them to stop doing. He later deleted his "explanation" himself.
 * The only thing I deleted was their comment about me because it was what the 1st-level warning template required. Thank you. —KinkyLipids (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon, I tend to agree that deleting comments was probably inappropriate here--simply for the sake of erring on the side of caution. KinkyLipids, I am not sure how to react to this complaint.  It is...insubstantial at very best.  I mean this with sincere respect, but perhaps you would be well served to steer clear of the more contentious sections of Wikipedia.  Cheers.  Dumuzid (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please get Guy under control? He's said I shouldn't be editing here, he's taken to openly mocking me. I post a RFC to get more eyes, he removes it. This is not acceptable behavior, I've behaved entirely civilly. Feoffer (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Aroniel2
Disruptive POV pushing across Gavin McInnes (Special:Diff/982747592) and Proud Boys (Special:Diff/982754491). Was previously blocked indefinitely on 12 January 2018 for POV pushing racist perspectives and personal opinions of Catholicism, and was unblocked on 9 July 2020 after claiming they didn't mean to POV push. They've been warned four times by different editors just in the past 24h, but insist on adding "by left wing activists" to any mention of neo-fascism etc because "that will protect your Credibility, Neutrality". Also, they continue to mention that they're important: "Take it from me, described by SES as one of the best ever DIA Strategic level intelligence analyst of the Agency" - which harks back to their original appeal in 2018 where they also said they would use sock puppet IPs to circumvent the block. Feels like Aroniel2 is WP:NOTHERE to me. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidently, Aroniel is WP:NOTHERE to contribute properly -- they seem to have a very narrow focus on righting (what they think are) great wrongs. They have been repeatedly warned about POV-editing culminating in an indef block. Despite being unblocked, they have chosen to ignore further warnings and carry on pov-pushing. I think this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Pinging as they were the admin who indef blocked the editor in question, and unblocked them thereafter. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk  06:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Going by the user's edits to articles, and especially by their recent comments on their own talkpage and at User talk:MelbourneStar, they either don't understand Wikipedia's principles or they simply don't want to hear about them. I've indeffed again, per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Just a heads up, I have been dealing with this user for years. After I blocked them, they started emailing me and never stopped, and at this point they semi-regularly send me random communications highlighting articles they write or media appearances they make. I don't know if it's intended as harassment or what but it's been going on for years. Somewhere along the way they ironed out some type of plausible deniability rationale that I couldn't really argue with, and that combined with the standard offer and a dose of good faith in their willingness to return using their original account, rather than by socking, which they had previously stated was their intent, I decided to unblock with a hope that they would not immediately go directly to proving me wrong. Good grief, I look like a chump right now for this. Anyway, going forward, keep in mind that this user may simply attack you as some sort of nobody living in their parents' basement, or a left wing activist, but they may also again shift to some sort of gaslighting, plausible deniability defense, they may attempt to intimidate you by touting their status as an employee of a certain organization (which is true), or as some sort of respected person who is at times consulted by the media (which is also true). If this user inappropriately emails you in any manifestation, know that there is a longstanding track record of this, be careful about taking the bait and giving this user your email address via a reply, and consider revoking email access or replying on wiki to avoid disclosing your email to them, and to all users, be on the lookout for sockpuppetry. Sorry for the disruption my unblock resulted in. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, my parents live in my basement. Don't feel bad about assuming good faith, . I haven't heard from the user by mail, but they have written, not very constructively, on their page. Nothing to revoke tpa over, though. I have a question: did you ask for the e-mailing to stop, and did it still continue? Was it so aggravating that I should perhaps revoke wikimail right away, in your opinion? Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Shame on you for making your parents live in a basement. Attics are more traditional. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the worst it got was right at the very beginning when they were personally attacking me (as I described on their talk page). Just typical stuff about how I'm a left-wing activist millennial living in my parents' basement while they are some highly respected expert, whatever. It gradually mellowed out to arguing with the rationale behind the block itself, and then just randomly emailing me. It's more of a harmless nuisance, and not something you need to revoke email access over by default, but I would encourage not humoring any inappropriate emails this time around. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Today I removed their tpa for posting long rants there, plus saying they intend to sock, and now they're sending me all these delights via e-mail instead. That's not acceptable. I'm turning off their e-mail permissions. I hope that doesn't lead to them resuming with unacceptable e-mails to you, as being the only admin (AFAIK) who has let them have their address. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

Uncommunicative helper
I'm requesting a block to get the attention of a good-faith and valuable IP editor who is nevertheless oblivious to their talk pages, and has been consistently breaking WP:STYLEVAR for several years despite numerous warnings.

The editor using the range 2601:601:E03:EBC0::/64 has for the past three years or so been making good-faith edits of mostly small corrections and cleanup across a wide range of articles, most of which are helpful. However, a large proportion of their edits have been to arbitrarily change "US" to "U.S.", sometimes inconsistently within an article, with the edit summary "Punctuation", e.g.:. Per MOS:US, this is an optional style, and per WP:STYLEVAR should not be arbitrarily changed or enforced in a bot-like fashion, which it seems they are doing. There have been a few other small problems with their edits, but it's been impossible to communicate with them.

I've tried to contact them over the past months, and left now five warnings about it, the latest at User talk:2601:601:E03:EBC0:8818:6CA0:412B:95F3. Unfortunately Wikipedia's talk page system is really unsuited to IP users whose address changes every time they edit. On the other hand, the editor has been stable within the /64 range, and it's clear that it's been the same person exclusively using that range, for the past several years. I'd like to ask for a block on the range in order to try to get their attention and establish communication (and encourage them to get an account). Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're going down that route, and since they're generally helpful, a partial block on article space only would be better, with a block reason pointing them towards this discussion (which they could then reply to). Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good idea... it should be clear that they are very welcome to edit here, there are just some minor problems to point out and it's mainly a technical problem that makes it hard to communicate, not really their fault. I wish there was a better system. --IamNotU (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Their IP doesn't change every edit, e.g. it lasted nearly 2 days here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Lloyd_Garrison&diff=prev&oldid=965050926] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donna_Brazile&diff=prev&oldid=965384394]. Of course you still have to catch them before it changes. Maybe more importantly, a large number of their edits seems to be from the mobile website. Therefore even if you did catch them, they are still unlikely to realise they have messages. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, I wish there was a better system, like a talk page for an entire IPV6 /64 range. This editor has no problem using talk pages, but they don't stay in one place. The bottom line is that the MOS is very specific about this particular issue, and they've ignored four warnings about it even if it's through no fault of theirs, so it's blockable. It's not a punishment. It's just a technical means to make contact and notify them of a problem that they're not aware of and I'm sure can be very easily solved with a brief and friendly conversation. --IamNotU (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligence block and ban issue
Per Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035 in April, the range Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 was blocked from Race and intelligence, while the editor was also topic banned. The block expired after three months. At Talk:Heritability of IQ the IP seems to think this also means the ban expired. My understanding is that ban was indefinite, and the IP editor has not appealed this. As far as I know, they haven't addressed it at all. The use of a huge IP range makes this confusing, and the IP knows this and is clearly taking advantage of it.

This editor has resumed the same bad-faith pot-stirring and POV pushing which lead to the ban in the first place:
 * This edit to User talk:Stonkaments misrepresents the situation and casts aspersions against User:NightHeron (without even pinging NightHeron). The IP's past conspiracy theory nonsense was specifically the tipping point which led to the ban.
 * Today we have this edit to User talk:General Iroh, the Dragon of the West. The IP editor is nudging and hinting that another editor should fill an Arbitration Enforcement report against me. The IP already tried this exact tactic last year. This editor must realize that if they create an account so they can do it themselves, they will be blocked or topic banned, so it sure looks like they are, once again, using their lack of an account as a way to avoid accountability.

As this IP shifts very frequently, there is no simple way to notify this editor of this discussion. Notifying the most recent IP would just be theatrics, but I'm sure they will figure it out from other notifications. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Aside from the question of whether my topic ban has expired or not, there is something else that ought to be discussed here. The most important reason I'd like these articles to be in arbitration is that there is a banned Wikipedia user who has been editing them semi-regularly for nearly a year, and I would like to present evidence to ArbCom about this editor's identity. I know this editor's identity because until five months ago, I was a participant in a private Slack server in which this person's actions on Wikipedia were coordinated. However, this evidence involves private information, so I think that it would be inappropriate to present it outside of an arbitration request.


 * There are a few other Wikipedia users who also are aware of this banned user's actions (due to also being members of the Slack), but the other users aren't particularly active and are unlikely to raise the issue themselves. Thus, I think that having the opportunity to raise this issue with ArbCom myself is the only way any action is likely to be taken about it. 2600:1004:B117:77AD:8C1A:DED2:C5B3:64DC (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC) strike topic ban violation –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, to summarize, you are repeatedly violating a topic ban, but what you really want is to violate WP:OUTING? --JBL (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) IP's revelation that RationalWiki is being deliberately undermined by alt-right parody trolls has led me to the realisation that I need to procure a stouter gauge of tinfoil. Narky Blert (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually know quite a bit more about the trolling at RationalWiki than I initially let on, because this was coordinated in the same Slack server that I mentioned previously. Most of the RationalWiki trolling happened in 2018, and I didn't leave the server until the end of April this year, so I had full view of what they were doing to RationalWiki while it was happening. So if anyone wants a list of some of the articles that I know were written as parodies, or clues that their authors deliberately left so that astute readers would know they were trolling, I'd be happy to provide that. 2600:1004:B117:77AD:8C1A:DED2:C5B3:64DC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC) strike topic ban violation –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So instead of addressing the topic ban in any way, the IP claims to have participated in a coordinated trolling campaign which targeted both Wikipedia and other projects. Is this supposed to be a bargaining chip? Since the IP was editing this topic while still part of this supposed slack group, this is an admission to having been part of an off-site trolling campaign. This is WP:MEAT and WP:HARASSMENT.
 * Doubling-down on this strained conspiracy theory is disruptive. If the IP editor wants to appeal, they should actually appeal. After that, they can follow WP:OUTING if there's anything to this. If that means creating an account, so be it. It's damning that this only comes up now, as change-of-subject after violating a topic ban. Grayfell (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit to approving of the parody trolling at RationalWiki, but when they started doing the same thing at Wikipedia I never supported it. Isn't that obvious? If I'd supported it, I would have voted "yes" to the proposal in the RFC. I previously avoided discussing the Slack server in public because I wanted to avoid betraying the contents of private correspondence, but keeping something private isn't the same as supporting the trolling or participating in it. And now that I've been removed from the Slack, I also don't feel the need to keep it private anymore.


 * And we can stop calling it the "supposed Slack group". The Slack server in question was titled "Quantitative HBD Workspace" and it was located here: http://kirkegaardjp.slack.com/ This server had a channel named "Wikipedia" where the parody trolling at both RationalWiki and Wikipedia was discussed. The server apparently has been deleted now, but that didn't happen until after I was removed, so I don't know whether the deletion was related to what I posted about this in April. 2600:1004:B141:BC2F:7D26:87F0:4849:C2EB (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC) strike topic ban violation –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you're avoiding the issue of being topic-banned, and no, it's not "obvious". You actively edited a topic while participating in a private off-site trolling campaign. You will have to create an account and email ArbCom if you want to pursue this.
 * So now you know what you have to do. You must abide by WP:BANEX. Changing the subject again isn't appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @IP: Visit User:Arbitration Committee to see how to confidentially report problems such as an active banned user. That page gives an email address you can use. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, but my existing experience with ArbCom suggests they're very unlikely to do anything unless someone requests a case (and maybe not even then). 2600:1004:B141:BC2F:7D26:87F0:4849:C2EB (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC) strike topic ban violation –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How convenient. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A conflict of interest has previously been declared by the IP and is still obvious. If this closes without action a COIN thread is likely a good idea, — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I don't want to get involved in your dispute, nor do I want to file any report against any editor. Thank you. Iroh (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this IP-editor has repeatedly violated WP:CANVASSING. Near the end of the RfC on race and intelligence, the IP-editor went in succession to two admins' user-pages to solicit them to close the RfC, apparently believing that they'd be favorable to the IP's view of it. This is discussed in the section of the archived RfC titled "Discussion of appropriateness of proposed/solicited closing of this RfC". Later, when the IP proclaimed that they were no longer topic-banned and opened a new discussion on the Heritability of IQ talk page, the IP canvassed two likeminded editors to join the discussion. I responded that this canvassing was improper, see.

When the IP contacted the two admins about closing the RfC on race and intelligence, in both cases the IP also complained about me to the admins and made accusations behind my back (that is, without pinging me). The accusations were false, and nothing came of them. The weird conspiracy theory that the IP concocted about me at ArbCom has already been mentioned, as has the IP's recent aspersions against me at someone's user-page. The IP's hostility toward me is apparently due to my role in initiating and arguing for the RfC proposal, which was that the belief that certain races are genetically superior to others in intelligence be categorized as fringe. NightHeron (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Ban IP editor and reinstate IP block. WP:NOTHERE user is clearly using IP addresses to evade their topic ban and abuse our processes. We would not put up with this nonsense from a registered user. If they have information they would like to share with ARBCOM, they're aware of that process and should use it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ban and reblock - I remember this IP and how disruptive they were (detailed by others above); it seems they've resumed those disruptive activities since the block expired, so it should be reinstated, for a longer period of time if not indefinite. Lev!vich 18:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ban and reblock - because obviously, but also because of how utterly tedious the trolling is. --JBL (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the topic ban was not time limited, and although it doesn't look like it was logged it sounds like the IP was aware of it. The block was time limited as IP blocks often are due to concerns over collateral. Since it was only (eventually) a partial block on 2 pages, collateral was limited, still I agree with User:NinjaRobotPirate's concerns. As always, if the block needs to be extended it should be, I don't think we have to discuss this further. While I'm not opposed to a community site ban, it seems unnecessary to me given the IP doesn't seem interested in anything else. Note that "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" is an exception to a topic ban, but this is generally taken to only apply to dispute resolution surrounding the ban itself. It doesn't include participating in arbitration surrounding the topic unrelated to the ban. And AFAIK while arbcom can still theoretically overturn community bans, their current policy is that they won't. That said, if the IP's only actions had been to open a case, and participate in it and they had accepted the outcome, I personally would have opposed any reimposition of the partial block because their arbitration request was technically a violation. But this isn't what the IP did, so it's their own tough luck. They are still able to email arbcom which sounds like it will be necessary even if they didn't have a topic ban given that it involves private information. Also, I wouldn't actually mind if arbcom decided to allow their participation despite the topic ban and overturned any partial block. However this can only come from them actually talking to arbcom about it, and convincing them and it will need to be restricted to them participating in any case. (Last time they tried, it didn't seem to go well probably in part because they gave no reason why their participation was needed Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 15.) Whatever the correctness of the IP's views of arbcom, one thing I'm sure of is nothing is going to happen as long as no one actually does something about this. And since the IP is the only one who seems to think there is an issue, it's going to have to be on them. Arbcom can't do anything about something they know nothing about because the IP has spent all their time arguing over other stuff elsewhere in violation of their topic ban rather than informing arbcom of the alleged problem somewhere they will consider it. Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify what you're suggesting I should do here? You seem to be suggesting that I raise the issue with ArbCom, but you also are saying that for me to do so would be a topic ban violation. I'm also not clear on how you suggest that I raise the issue with them, because arbitration requests can only be made by registered users. For the reasons I've explained, it would be a waste of time for me to try emailing them about this issue out of the blue, although I could present evidence to them in an email if there was an arbitration case already underway. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC) strike topic ban violation –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying it was a topic ban violation, but I wouldn't have cared if that was all you did. However since you spent your time doing other stupid stuff, you now bringing up arbitration as if we're only trying to stop you seeking arbitration is silly. You're in trouble mostly because of the other stuff you did not because if your desire to open an arbitration case. Even if you felt you needed someone else to open the case, this doesn't explain why you were trolling on the talk page about RFCs etc on things unrelated to any arbitration. Also I'm not aware that there is any requirement for an account to open a case. I had a quick look at the guides etc and can't see that it's a requirement although I can't be bothered looking carefully. It's true that Arbitration/Requests/Case is semi protected, still if I'm right then I assume all you have to do is convince someone that you actually have a reasonable case. This would likely be someone in arbcom or a clerk, not other random people. It's probably difficult since last time that was tried it doesn't look like it went well [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=943971758&oldid=943909102] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=943972824&oldid=943971758] however that's really none of my concern and it doesn't explain why you did the other crap which just made things worse. If I'm wrong, then you will either need to register an account or instead use email to bring a case. You will still be violating your topic ban after you register an account if you do it on Wikipedia, but again, I think people would care a lot less if this is all you were doing. The moment you start to do other crap in violation of your topic ban is when you really get in trouble. I'm not even sure why you want a public case since it doesn't sound like there is any evidence that could be presented publicly. You've offered no coherent explanation as to why you think bringing a case with good evidence via email will fail just because someone hasn't done something on Wikipedia first. Indeed, from my POV, although I've never served on arbcom, if someone wastes time opening a case on Wikipedia when they can't actually present public evidence, I'm more likely to ignore them since they don't seem to know what they're doing and so are likely just wasting my time. As said already, you doing the other stuff in clear violation of your topic ban and then talking some dumb crap about how your topic ban had expired because the partial block had, is also likely to mean you get less attention. In other words, the more time you waste on this stuff rather than actually bring your case somewhere, whether by email or on Wikipedia as conditions allow, the less likely it is to succeed. You're spending all your time talking about how you want to bring a case, without actually doing it, so the logic conclusion is you know your don't have a case and are just wasting everyone's time. Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that frankly you trying to open a case on Wikipedia when the case page says "Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page" is another sign to me that your case will be ignored if you try that route. Email is your only option under these circumstances. This doesn't mean you need someone else to open a case first. Putting aside no one is going to open a case when you are the only one who has the evidence, and it's private so not something many are going to want to receive nor can it be posted publicly anyway; as I implied before, it's actually harmful to any prospects. We have processes in place to deal with issues such as your, your refusal to follow them and instead trying to do other weird and unwelcome stuff like contacting random people means you are convincing people you should be ignored. Those processes are 'use email and don't discuss it publicly when the evidence can't be'. Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There actually is a fair amount of evidence that I would be able to present in public. The banned Wikipedia user who's primarily responsible for the parody trolling was sporadically corresponding with ArbCom via email at the same time, and the timeline of his correspondence with ArbCom closely matches his on-Wiki actions. I know the contents of this correspondence because it was shared on Slack. The person responsible had told the Slack's other members that if ArbCom were willing to unblock him under his main account, he would return to normal editing and not add any more parody material, but ArbCom never unblocked him or (as far as I know) acknowledged his last few messages at all. ArbCom presumably still has this email correspondence in their own records. Thus, I would not necessarily have to send ArbCom any new private material; it might be enough to describe how the private material they already have lines up with the on-Wiki actions of the parody account.


 * Anyway, here is the part that matters: if I want ArbCom to open I case, do I have to email them out of the blue, or should I try to convince an ArbCom member or clerk? You're being unclear about that. I'm willing to try the second thing, but in that case I'd need clearer instructions how to do so. When I previously contacted an individual arbitrator (SilkTork) in his user talk, I was told that doing that is disruptive, so presumably there's some better way to do it. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious your are trying to drag this out as a deflection. You already know that ArbCom will review private evidence since you claim to have been part of a secret club which discussed this. If you have the ability to participate in a Slack server, you have the ability to create an account! Create an account and use that account to email User:Arbitration Committee. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Will you please drop this issue about me editing as an IP? I participated in Slack using the Slack app, which isn't affected by my inability to use cookies in a browser. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC) strike topic ban violation –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first excuse for not having an account was just that you didn't want to get too involved, then you started changing the subject like you're doing now, then eventually it was the cookie thing. If we accept you were part of an off-site trolling campaign, why would we believe any of this anyway? Nobody is obligated to accept this cookie excuse anymore.
 * If this information is private, one way or another, you're going to have to use email. If it's not private, this is just a waste of time. Regardless, this still doesn't explain why you violated your topic ban, cast aspersions and misrepresented other people's edits, spread bizarre conspiracy theories, and even now are canvassing to ostensibly sympathetic editors. You haven't even acknowledged why you got banned in the first place! Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was topic banned for trying to make the case that NightHeron was a parody account (while not disclosing any private details from the Slack), right? And it's the exact same thing that happened to the user "Concerned" at RationalWiki, when he tried to make a similar case about the parody trolling that was happening there. You certainly seem quite determined to allow Kirkegaard's trolling and ban evasion to continue. If you end up succeeding at that, well, congratulations in advance. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC) strike topic ban violation –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I object strongly to the IP's words trying to make the case that NightHeron was a parody account (while not disclosing any private details from the Slack), which suggest that the ban for the IP's ludicrous conspiracy theory about me was unjustified, and that there really is some private evidence from Slack that I'm a right-wing troll who's pretending to be liberal or leftist so that I can later expose Wikipedia for something. Any editor can compare the IP's denunciation of me at ArbCom with my editing history, and see that the IP's slur against me is an outlandish personal attack with no evidence. BTW, I have never participated in Slack. The IP is so disruptive that they even use the opportunity of this ANI discussion to make further attacks and innuendos. As I said, the IP's real reason for hostility toward me is my role in the RfC that was closed with a decision that the consensus on Wikipedia is that the racialist POV on genetics and intelligence is fringe. NightHeron (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe we may need a range block for the IP. I have reverted and revdel's an edit that contained an editor's first name here. Any admin can feel free to revert me if this was in error. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, the original account of the editor that I'm referring to has his real name on his user page: . Is it outing to mention someone's real name when they have themselves disclosed it? I'm not clear on the exact rules in this area, but if that's outing, I won't do it again. 2600:1004:B154:E893:C872:359A:2878:1012 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC) strike topic ban violation –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC) 2600 I thought my post was already clear enough. If you want to complain about something and the only evidence is private, then email arbcom to open a case in private. There is absolutely zero reason to try and open a public case, it's a silly thing to do. However if you did want to open a public case, which only makes sense if you have information that can be presented in public, then the way to do that is to either get an account with auto/confirmed status or to contact someone on arbcom or a clerk to let you open a case as an IP. It's mostly definitely not posting about other stuff on the Heritability of IQ talk page, not even asking other random editors to do it.  I have no say on what anyone else does & especially not arbcom, but IMO you are unlikely to be able to convince anyone on arbcom or a clerk to let you open a public case if the only evidence you have is private. Especially since you're topic banned from the area and you violated your topic ban to do stuff completely unrelated to opening a case, stuff which strongly suggests you're trolling. You will probably be ignored and told to bugger off, which sounds like it already happened. (This also means any case you open with an account will probably be reverted.)  If you are really not trolling, well sorry but since you spend all your time doing everything other than the logical thing, emailing your private evidence to arbcom to open a case, it's very difficult to believe you & arbcom is likely to feel the same. Still if you actually have evidence, especially evidence which isn't easily faked, like emails send to arbcom by someone else which haven't been made public AFAAK, there is still a chance you may be taken seriously. (Although that supposes you are "someone else".) The chance is much lower given that you didn't just email arbcom in the first place instead spent your time doing stuff unrelated to opening a case, then asking how to open a case when everyone told you to email. The more you post silly comments or questions here, the lower the chance becomes.  Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

'''Ban is still in place; a reblock is likely to impact others. Yes, ArbCom needs to look into this.''' Agreed that the proper thing to do about the other user[s]' Slack-organized trolling and PoV-pushing efforts is submitting private evidence to ArbCom. And no, doing so is not outing. Pointing out that Kierkegaard used his real name on WP is not outing. Tying that individual to some off-site user at another forum might well be, so use a private ArbCom communication as advised. I think that this user is entirely correct that another user (who opened an RfC on this topic) is in fact intentionally trolling. I had already said so, based on pretty obvious inconsistencies, such as citing far-right "sources" and advancing arguments that are not actually leftist but right-wing parodies of leftism. As for the particular user before us right now: I don't see any evidence that the topic-ban has been lifted, though I think benefit of the doubt could possibly be extended to mistaking an end of a block for an end of a ban. I.e., I don't think the anon in question needs additional sanctions placed on them. The t'ban should be enough, and it might actually be appealable at some point, if the user does that properly. I don't support re-instituting a broad IP block unless it proves necessary, since that impacts too many other people. (I find such blocks a regular thorn in my own side; most of my VPN exit points get hit with them, and I sometimes have to bounce around between VPN servers until I find one that will work here, from somewhere like Serbia or Singapore or some other far-flung location nowhere near me, which in turn results in slow loading.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC); revised: 21:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , please look closer if you intend to repeat these accusations. According to the IP, NightHeron is a "parody" because NightHeron cited The New Observer. Heiner Rindermann is quoted in The New Observer, and that's what NightHeron was citing. The specific point was that Rindermann is not reliable.  The New Observer is a far-right fake news site which published white supremacist content. That was NightHeron's entire point, so the IP's accusations are nonsensical. Again, NightHeron was citing Rindermann's own words in a fake news site as evidence that Rindermann promotes fringe views. If you accept that New Observer is a bad source, then you agree with NightHeron, not the IP. Nothing about NightHeron's use of this source, on a talk page, in this context, is suspicious.
 * The IP also calls Leon Kamin a "communist part member" without linking to that person's name for context. In addition to invoking literal McCarthyism, this is simplistic and misleading. At the time the specific source was published, Kamin was chair of Princeton's psychology department, and he went on to be a Guggenheim Fellow. Kamin is not a fringe source merely because he was targeted by McCarthyism.
 * The IP block was never broad. It was specific to Talk:Race and intelligence and Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The only collateral would be if somehow another Verizon user in the same area, who also refuses to create an account, wanted to get involved in this specific topic. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Rindermann is not a "contributor to The New Observer". The New Observer published an article by someone else that was praising Rindermann, and Rindermann may not even be aware that this article exists. Claiming that Rindermann contributed to this site is a BLP violation, so I suggest you redact that part of your comment.


 * Here is what's suspicious about NightHeron's citing of that article: if you click the link he posted to the article he was quoting, you'll see that the article is not publicly accessible. It either is paywalled, or requires registration to view. Why would a real leftist have registered an account at a far-right fake news site, and/or be paying to read articles there? 2600:1004:B118:7657:E86C:A065:4028:3E46 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC) (striking topic ban violation) –dlthewave ☎ 02:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I did not pay or register to get access to the article in New Observer. I just now tried the link I used, and it has become a deadlink. My purpose, as Grayfell says, was to show that the German racist alt-right enthusiastically cites Rindermann's writings. The quote about Rindermann can now be found (no paywall) in another racist alt-right publication, Vdare.
 * McCandlish has been around long enough to know about the policies WP:CANVASSING and WP:NPA, so I'm surprised that when the IP canvassed him to support the IP's nonsensical complaint against me, McCandlish obliged. As I said when the IP presented his conspiracy theory to ArbCom, I'll gladly answer any specific accusation if other editors want me to. But the IP's attack on me here is really just an attempt to divert attention from the IP's own conduct. NightHeron (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The specific article the IP is pointing to is this one, which is available on Archive.org without registration. This is still a huge, annoyingly transparent distraction though. If multiple white supremacist outlets are enthusiastically citing Rindermann, this is a red flag that this author might not be reliable. Mentioning that on a talk page is perfectly reasonable. Grayfell (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I came to my suspicions through my own analysis and observation, in a discussion in which I was a participant, not at the anon's prompting. Please don't make assumptions about how "closely I'm looking".  Please also do not presume that because I have expressed skepticism that happens to coincide with some skepticism (or outright accusation) expressed by this anon, that I somehow agree with every idea and accusation made by the anon against everyone everywhere.  I have no interest in debating with you the pros and cons of these various editors (whom you and the anon are naming, not me).  My central point is that this is the sort of thing which ArbCom should look into, with necessary but private (per OUTING) evidence.  It is not a matter to try to air out in a public venue like this., et al.: I assume you're well aware of the fallacy of guilt by association, so it seems weird to have to point out that "the German racist alt-right enthusiastically cites Rindermann's writings" tells us nothing at all about the nature of Rindermann or his writings.  (I'm not mounting a defense of Rindermann, mind you, just pointing out that criticism of a subset of his fans is not a criticism of him or his work.)  In other words, "multiple white supremacist outlets are enthusiastically citing" all sorts of things, like FBI and DoJ crime and incarceration statistics, yet this doesn't make the FBI and DoJ reports unreliable sources.  There's no connection between who likes and uses previously published material (often with intentional or ignorant distortion), and the actual quality of that material, which is to be judged on its own merits (editorial and publishing process, professional assessment within the pertinent field, etc. – what we collectively call "reputability").
 * In the course of the RfC on race and intelligence several reasons were given for Rindermann's unreliability, and Rindermann was debated at great length (his name occurs over 80 times in the RfC). Is this really the place to relitigate the RfC? NightHeron (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Implying that there is some reason to be "skeptical" of another editor, without providing any basis, is casting aspersions. Refusing to "name" an editor who has already been named is pointless and confusing. None of the reasons you've given for this skepticism hold up, but more importantly, this isn't even the place for this in the first place, as we all seem to agree. These aspersions are not appropriate here, so casually mentioning them in this way was a mistake. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The aspersion being cast by the IP is not directly related to the complaint against them and is a clear violation of their topic ban. This is disruptive and should not be allowed to continue. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. This should never have been raised on-wiki, but through ArbCom-L.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Special:Contribs/2600:1004:B14F:65D6:4102:98DA:42EA:E4A7 made an edit that needed to be revdel'd today. Maybe temporarily full blocking these range slices will help:
 * Special:Contribs/2600:1004:b114:cc00:0:0:0:0/56
 * Special:Contribs/2600:1004:b117:7700:0:0:0:0/56
 * Special:Contribs/2600:1004:b118:7600:0:0:0:0/55
 * Special:Contribs/2600:1004:b141:bc00:0:0:0:0/54
 * Special:Contribs/2600:1004:b14f:6500:0:0:0:0/56
 * Special:Contribs/2600:1004:b152:af00:0:0:0:0/56
 * Special:Contribs/2600:1004:b154:e800:0:0:0:0/56
 * Just don't block Lev!vich :-) 22:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The IP editor is continuing to discuss a potential ARBCOM case on SMcCandlish's talk page (permalink) which is yet another violation of their WP:TBAN. Editors should refrain from discussing the banned topic with this user. –dlthewave ☎ 01:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Dead horse
Maybe someone can have a look at this (and you can scroll up the page, to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) to see if this is a NOTHERE case. I know, the user hasn't moved back into article space yet, and that's why I haven't made that block yet. Drmies (talk)
 * OK, the horse is no longer dead: . Thank you, User:IdreamofJeanie, for reverting. Sheesh, even the damn edit summaries are giving me a headache. You'd think they'd copyedit it some if they were going to use it so often. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem they've gotten the point of the block. Maybe an indefinite block that confines them to their talk page until they understand that they should discuss this calmly and politely? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Uninvolved admin here. I saw this editor edit warring on AN/I through my watchpage, looked through a bit, and indeffed as NOTHERE. Three blocks in a short time span and no suggestion of better behavior, you're out. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Gah, just the shouting merits a block. video, shmideo, I say! -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 03:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User JPS1965
WP:SPA account, edit-warring to include an unreferenced year of birth in. No edits other than to this article. The use of edit summaries suggests that others' edit summaries have been noticed, if not the warnings on the editors talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This has continued since the above was posted. Can someone please block this editor, at minimum for BLP violations. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly reverted my edits on Lola Astanova over the last months and ignored my requests to leave reliable citations in place. I concur with Hipal's block request. pgbrown (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This user has not only reverted edits, the user has added information which is directly counter to sourced information and his/her edit summaries are plain uncivil. I also concur with Hipal's block request.THD3 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple(?) editors including User:SpectresWrath going absolutely HAM
Not quite sure where to post this -- there's edit warring, but there's also copyright issues, and possible sockpuppeting, as well as... uh... it's a spectacle, and a spectacle is a type of incident, right?

The first thing I noticed, while patrolling RC, was the absolute thunderdome going on between User:SpectresWrath and User:Avdald (with tangential involvement from User:Pissedgreenlink). This is mostly stuff I should mind my own business about (since I'm not involved in the content dispute) -- however, this wasn't the first time I had seen SpectresWrath going wild on Wikipedia. In fact, in recent times, I recalled that they had actually been reverting up a storm - one that was hard to ignore, and one that I hadn't failed to notice. And it seems SpectresWrath has a heck of a talk page, apparently getting into scuffles of this sort on the regular (as well as c/ping COPYVIOs into mainspace on the regular), so it was not too long before I began to consider these reverts and questionable IP edits as part of a greater trend. And at that point, I found myself thinking: SpectresWatch has really been going ham on Wikipedia lately.

It sure is a weird coincidence how many IP addresses there are in the 2601: range that only ever make two edits, which are both to this article, and weirder still that it seems to happen only when SpectresWrath is about to break 3RR. There's also whatever the heck this is -- from the looks of it, SpectresWrath being ardently defended in an argument by an IP editor whose only edits are to that talk page to agree with him (all of which are ludicrously bad-faith bordering on personal attacks). As well as ANOTHER IP editor whose only two edits are to that talk page (to agree with SpectresWrath). jp×g 05:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no connection with this ip editor because I truly have no idea who that was. Plus, I can't always focus one page all day when I contribute to others or take a break from wikipedia. You can't let a online encyclopedia consume you from real world activities. SpectresWrath (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * For starters, let me express my absolute amazement that One Piece has TWENTY whole seasons. Second, I have full protected the page for two days, which should buy some time to find a solution. This isn't the first time these editors have run into trouble on this page, perhaps a partial block from the page will suffice, or at least for SpectresWrath. In terms of socking? Eh, possible, but not sure who would be a sock of who. If a CU would like to look into the IPs I think there is cause enough, but I can't piece it together from behavior alone. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What's going HAM? Is it anything like "going hog wild"? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I had to look it up, urban dictionary has an entry. Full marks for guessing the meaning from the context. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was always told before to wait for official source to reveal episode titles and his source didn't say anything about them. So I undid it and hid the titles away until each episode aired. My last edit for that page was at 23:33, 12 October 2020. Why must I get blocked for trying to follow the guidelines. SpectresWrath (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose won't stop pinging me even after I've told him to stop repeatedly.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Harassment&oldid=977307101#Pinging_harassment. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saturday_Night_Live_(season_46)&oldid=983407587#Sourcing/OR_in_the_SNL_family_of_articles?
 * I stopped pinging Koavf until Koavf started pinging me again. If Koavf doesn't ping me, I won't ping Koavf. Sundayclose (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Use the mute function. Frankly I think it's ridiculous Wikipedia's culture of "stop pinging me". Use the damn mute function, everybody. Lev!vich 02:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point . So there's a mute function on Wikipedia? Where is it? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , on any user page or talk page, there should be a "mute this user" link on your left sidebar (or at least there is on mine). You can also get to it via Preferences->Notifications. Lev!vich 02:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , He can ping me on something else: I assume that he may have something useful to say on another subject. Obliging me to do something where he will modify my behavior is not the correct direction of causality. Telling him to stop should be enough and yet I'm not doing enough to manage his behavior? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You told me to stop pinging you, so I stopped. Then you started pinging me again. As I've said several times, stop pinging me and I won't ping you. Are you saying that you can ping others but they should not be allowed to ping you when they reply? Sundayclose (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes. You are free to make the same request any time you want. You never did. This isn't complicated: if someone says to leave him alone, then leave him alone. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I disagree with that logic. You're the one who doesn't want to receive the pings, so you should make that happen by pressing mute, rather than asking the other person to not ping you. And also to not ping you about a specific topic? I mean, how much do you expect another user to remember about your particular communication preferences? It can easily be turned around as: You want him to modify his behavior because you don't want to receive pings? Now don't get me wrong, general statements like "leave me alone" should be honored, and intentionally bothering someone who wants to be left alone is not cool. But, as I've said, "don't ping me" is, in my view, an unreasonable request for anyone to make of anyone else, because we have a mute function. We're talking two clicks and you get what you want. Instead of you spending two clicks, you want the rest of us to spend how much time on this? Know what I mean? Lev!vich 02:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd be very interested to see you make this argument on WT:HARASS. But yes, I don't think it's too much to say, "I'm done being pinged on this one thread: maybe someday later, you'll have something that I want to see". ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅ at WT:HARASS, and I agree with you that it is not too much to say "I'm done being pinged on this one thread" and the other person should respect that. But then if you ping them in your very next post, of course one would expect they'll ping you back. Otherwise what you're saying is "I'll ping you but I don't want you to ping me back" and that's just silliness. Use the mute function, otherwise we need a scorecard to keep track of who is supposed to ping who under what circumstances. Lev!vich 03:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's a screen shot thumbnail with the "mute this user" highlighted. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 02:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * RE :I stopped pinging Koavf until Koavf started pinging me again. If Koavf doesn't ping me, I won't ping Koavf O, criminy. I should block 'em both. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 02:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, if someone asks you to stop pinging them, stop posting on their talk page, whatever you stop. The mute function is there and some may prefer to use it, but it should never be required. If you want someone to stop pinging you, ask them. Don't expect people to guess. Some people may still welcome pings from a person who said they didn't want ping. These features are intended to improve communication between editors on a collaborative project. If for some reason it isn't working, then they end. That's simple human decency, and how most of the world operates. I don't understand why people need to be brought to ANI to be told this. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that thread is like 2 months old and I can't be bothered looking into the history. So I'll just add, that there's no problem with genuine mistakes where someone forgot. Likewise, there's no problem if you stopped pinging someone then 2 months later they pinged you so you thought maybe they now welcomed pings and pinged them back. It would probably have been better to ask, but it whatever, I don't think it matters much. OTOH, if you pinged someone because you want them to stop pinging you as well then that's a major no-no. Just make a simple polite request for the editor to stop if you feel the same. Don't try and force editors to be mind readers and especially don't try and prove some lame point. The comment here makes me think it's something along the latter lines, hence why my initial comment, but if I'm wrong, sorry. But also, if you asked someone to stop pinging you and they did stop and started again 2 months later, well then please don't open an ANI thread. Instead talk to the editor, and politely ask again, 'hey I asked you to stop pinging me, maybe you forgot?' If they reply 'I'll stop pinging you if you stop pinging me' then you say 'sorry I never realised you wanted me to stop pinging you as well, I'll do that' and you both stop pinging each other and no one at ANI needs to hear about it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment was poorly worded. For clarification, I meant this thread [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Harassment&oldid=977307101#Pinging_harassment] is 2 months old, which made me wondered what the history here and who told who what when. I didn't check out this thread [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saturday_Night_Live_(season_46)&oldid=983407587#Sourcing/OR_in_the_SNL_family_of_articles] since I didn't really care, but I now see that a request was recent. But I also see in at the end of that thread that the last comment was "If you don't want me to ping you, then please don't ping me." and even before that, possibly the first time the request was violated "Since you pinged me I am now pinging you." which adds further emphasis to my last point. No matter how poorly it was handled, the best solution was simply to say something like 'if you had wanted me to stop pinging you, you just needed to tell me, since you have I'll of course stop' and stop and not bother ANI unless the editor kept pinging you even after you stopped pinging them. If there was genuine uncertainty whether the older one was a request to stop pinging, then ask without pinging. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is very disheartening to see two editors whom I respect a lot, having quarrels like these. I think it is because of Sundayclose, and, that I am still active on wikipedia. If it wasnt for these two, I would have left soon after I began editing. And it was Justin's contributions (not the number of contribs) what inderectly inspired me to increase my editing. Please guys, find some way to get over this. Just thinking about you guys fighting makes my heart sink, and makes me very uncomfortable. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Eldhorajan92, copyvios, edit-warring, disruption
The Indian Eastern Christian Churches have been ground zero for significant disruption and sockpuppetry. Perhaps you admins have protected a page or two in this topic area. I am now running into trouble with a long-term editor,. It began with WP:MOS annoyances such as MOS:HON (although a larger problem with that edit is the number of image copyvios added). He will not use the correct link to Jacobite Syrian Christian Church but instead creates dablinks in articles because of using alternate names. He is now edit-warring against me and I have opened commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Eldhorajan part 2 because of his wide-ranging image copyright violation uploads, which he of course attaches to every article he can get his hands on. His talk page is replete with warnings to use edit summary (he uses a talk page about once a year) and he's been plenty warned about copyright violations before. He hasn't seen the errors of his ways. Elizium23 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Jacobite Syrian Church have Two or more names that is Iam included, not more. Iam not against to do war fighting agianst Elizium23. Iam shown the correct information based, other ways this user support one only organization, what ever, Iam against it. He argued some pictures as copyright problem. Whether It have no issues, Its common icons of saints used many sites <b style="color:black; font-family:Bradley Hand ITC">Eldhose</b>Talk


 * His article creations are copyright violations too. This article is just a direct copy of the churches website, which clearly states that it is copyrighted by the church. 192.76.8.92 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also this edit is copied from another wikipedia page, without attribution. This edit is taken from this website  192.76.8.92 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's unsurprising, as he has tons of copyvios uploaded to Commons. I've started the deletion process there. Elizium23 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have filed a report at WP:CCI where it will probably get as much traction as this report did. Elizium23 (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have filed a report at WP:CCI where it will probably get as much traction as this report did. Elizium23 (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have filed a report at WP:CCI where it will probably get as much traction as this report did. Elizium23 (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:ChuispastonBot is malfunctioning
I saw in the history of the Duolingo page, he added English for Hebrew speakers. If you could get back, could you again undo this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gytrwd43 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Last edit from the bot was in 2012. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 03:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

General uncivil behaviour by user.
User:GiantSnowman has constantly been uncivil in his editing. As he has over 400,000 edits, I cannot go through every single discretion, but his attitude towards other editors has been constantly demeaning and condescending. This comment is incredibly condescending, and is plainly ridiculing my previous comment. His edits at Talk:Reece James (footballer, born 1999) recently have also been rude and condescending again. These are not isolated incidents, and it feels like every single time I have come into contact with him, he has been like this.

I am sure I am not the only user at WP:FOOTY to feel this way, and I hope something can be done to quash this type of behaviour. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The top of this page states: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" - It appears you haven't done that?
 * One diff probably won't do. Perhaps some diffs of the specific comments at the Reece James Talk page would be start.
 * Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I forgot. I have now done so. Here is one example. The rest is just him acting as though he is better than everyone else on this site. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * David, let's look at your conduct shall we? Above you seem to have issue with me saying "you know nothing about football" (from a discussion 5 months ago!) even though that's NOT what I said, and even though you said worse to me recently. In addition, here I politely asked you to stop pinging me - your response was ping me. I politely asked you again not to ping me - so you pinged me again, and also told me to "go fuck myself". I then asked you tp stop pinging me and said if you continued that I would take it to ANI. Your response was to start this ANI thread. I think WP:BOOMERANG applies here. I have tried my hardest to keep my cool dealing with an editor such as yourself, who has been overly aggressive and badgering in the discussion. GiantSnowman 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to put great store by what you ask of others, so in return I ask you to please stop attacking me. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And where have I attacked you? GiantSnowman 19:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop mis-quoting guidelines to try and get your own way and You fail to understand. Neither comment is necessary and neither adds anything to the argument. Such ad hominem attacks weaken arguments rather than strengthen them. The points could be made without personal commentary. DrKay (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You could have just said, "I believe you're misreading the guideline." (I actually think it is a confusingly written one). Instead by saying "to try and get your own way" you're saying that DrKay is deliberately misquoting it, which seems like a personal attack to me.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I misspoke and apologise. No malice was intended, and no personal attacks. AGF works both ways. GiantSnowman 20:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) I have for a long time noticed that this editor seems to display ownership over football articles, and very little competence when it comes to other subjects. A recent example of mild incivility is, which on its own is not something that deserves a report here, although I don't take kindly to being told that I have a fundamental ignorance of a subject when he should know full well that I don't, but if is this is a regular occurrence, and involves more sensitive editors than I, then some action needs to be taken. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was almost a year ago today that GS wrote (about another editor's proposal) "This proposal shows a striking ignorance of various sports", to which I responded "every time I see you insulting someone with whom you disagree, I will ask you to stop it", to which GS replied, "whomst have I insulted? I've commented on the content, not the contributor". Lev!vich 02:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here because I participated in the Reece James move discussion. I'm kinda disappointed to see this kind of behavior from a sysop. Look I get it, Davidlofgren wouldn't WP:DROPTHESTICK. But it takes two to tango. GiantSnowman could've simply stopped replying too. Instead GiantSnowman said Please, continue to a) badger me and b) engage in speculation. In my opinion, it's WP:Passive Aggressive. Having experienced this before, I also object to GiantSnowman asking Davidlofgren "As I've already politely asked, please do not ping me", and then going ahead and making snide remarks about Davidlofgren (Just the kind of conduct I expect from OP to be honest). And then there's this discussion from about 3 months ago. GS and another editor are discussing whether a sentence should be removed from an article. After much discussion, someone from WP:3O weighs in. At first, GS says I would respect the consensus, even if I disagreed. But then when the 3O is not in their favor, GS says The fact you have never heard of the subject means, respectfully, you cannot judge the situation accurately. It's also lamentable that a sysop is bringing up things like WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS to an editor with considerably less experience, yet fails to mention that per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 06:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IP and (possibly linked) user User:GreenTeaExtracts

 * Original section title was: "Disruptive edits by IP and (possibly linked) user User:GreenTeaExtracts: edit warring, ignoring edit explanations/won't discuss, adding fringe material, original research and unecyclopedic personal commentary to Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence page." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

An IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.244.166.33) and more recently a user (User:GreenTeaExtracts) (whose edits and notes appear very similar and whom may possibly be the same person) are repeatedly adding fringe material, original researcher and inappropriate/unencyclopedic personal commentary on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence page, edit warring and ignoring edit notes explaining problems with their edits (originally/their first edit here: []), first an IP and afterward the account. I reverted them first with an explanation in the notes and they reverted me writing in the edit notes simply: "Ideoological (egalitarian) vandalism, as regularly expected" ([]). When I reverted them again, explaining my reason, I immediately was reverted again by an account (User:GreenTeaExtracts) who also largely ignored my edit not explanations and justified their reversion of me in the edit notes with the statement, "Ideological censorship of studies artificially labelled "fringe" while being very solid". I reverted on more (last) time explaining in more detail, asking them not to ignore my edit notes and linking to the Rfc decision on the topic and explaining that one of their sources was not reliable (and Wikipedia's rules against original research and fringe content (with links) - here: [] and []). User:GreenTeaExtracts again reverted me, ignoring all of my explanations and links and responding only with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, calling me an "ideologue" and claiming that I was removing material I did not like; they wrote: "Is it possible to prevent Skllagyook to vandalize the article by deliting strong studies (from Nature, Intelligence, Science...) he doesn't like? Typical genetic hostility by egalitarian ideologue" ([]). I have not reverted them again as to avoid violating the 3RR rule (I hope I have not violated it already), and thus all their edits currently stand. They refuse to discuss at all and simply insist on reinstating their edits with personal attacks and accusations of bad faith.

Here is the article's edit history for reference:

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

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: Also, the user User:Dopamineagonist who is now making similar edits to the same page ([] appears to be a possible sock puppet of User:GreenTeaExtracts. Both have been reinstating the same edits and accusing those that disagree of being "activists" and of "vandalism".Skllagyook (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Censorship of data pointing genetic causation of higher ashkenazy intelligence by egalitarian ideologue User:Skllagyook
Any help to prevent Skllagyook from vandalizing the article, deleting for artificial reasons studies he doesn't like for ideological reasons, would be appreciated. For exemple, he asserts that the link between IQ and myopia is "fringe" while strongly supported by dozens of studies (from Nature, Intellingence, Science...). It is clear that this guy is an egalitarian activist who doesn't tolarate genetic support for the higher ashkenazy intelligence, we have to protect the article against his vandalism. Thanks for your help. GreenTeaExtracts (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As explained, this topic has been discussed (for example here [] and here []). And again, the issue is not about my personal preference, but rather that Wikipedia has policies against WP:OR (such as your myopia addition) and fringe sources (such as Piffer, cofounder of the pseudoscientific/academically questionable journal OpenPsych. The 2019 Dunkel et al. source on the same topic is co-written by Emil O.W. Kirkegaard, another cofounder of Openpsych.). I provided links (such as in my note here: []) and explanations but you consistently ignored them. Also, prsonal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are also against Wikipedia policies (see: WP:NPA and WP:AGF.Skllagyook (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As explained, your ideological vandalism is UNWELCOME here. Please stop immediately to delete studies you don't like, labeling artificially "fringe sources" what your fanatism doesn't tolerate.

Any help to exclude this ideologue would be appreciated. GreenTeaExtracts (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC) – Okay, so this article is a mess. GreenTeaExtracts is definitely edit-warring, and also quite hostile:  FTR, I'm treating the IP and GreenTeaExtracts as the same person; their edit summaries are identical; I don't see any place where they're pretending to be different people, though, so I don't think socking is really indicated. Skllagyook is also edit-warring:, though a bit more reasonably; they've butted right up against 3RR, but haven't actually crossed it yet. I would say a block is definitely indicated for GreenTeaExtracts at least, given the more serious edit-warring and stridency of their language. A block might be indicated for Skllagyook as well; theirs is not the most serious of edit wars given the context, but this isn't their first time at the edit-war rodeo. That's all just my opinion, of course; I have gotten myself involved, so I can't take admin action on my own. Just my 2 cents, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've submitted a request at WP:RFPP but can we please get this page protected from accounts constantly re-inserting racist sources and original research?Citing (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a clump of "keep" !votes at this related AfD, including one from GreenTeaExtracts, that look very sock-y. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also blocked and tagged User:GreenTeaExtracts, User:Dopamineagonist, and User:Realityistoblame as ✅ socks, and stricken their votes at the AfD. I initially full-protected the page to end the edit war, but since those three accounts were the primary disruptors I've lifted the protection since I don't think it will be needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello. Will I also be blocked? I would like to humbly request that I not be. I understand and believe, that, though I did not break the 3RR rule, I was in the wrong/in error for continuing to revert User:GreenTeaExtracts (and thus to edit war), and should likely have instead (after/when they refused to discuss) sought outside intervention sooner (and should do so in the future if a similar situation occurs). Skllagyook (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not by me. I blocked the three accounts above because they were operated by one user in contravention of the sockpuppetry policy. I agree that you should've sought outside intervention sooner, but I think an edit warring block against you would be punitive (not preventative) at this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elimination of referenced information by Impru20

 * 
 * 

This user is deleting accurate and referenced information, thus depriving the article of necessary content, for petty reasons. --Baprow (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some points of fact:


 * 1) This is a pointless fork of an ongoing discussion above.
 * 2) When you start a discussion about an editor here, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. This is said in big, red, highlighted text at the very top of this noticeboard.
 * 3) You only conducted those edits you link to make up an excuse to revert my own edits and continue with your harassment campaign on me. You did not make those to add any information (which can be ascertained in the fact that your edits are mostly aesthetical in nature).
 * 4) Complaining this way about another one's edits right after you just broke WP:3RR on eight separate articles is like one of the most hypocritical and suicidal actions I've ever seen.
 * 5) This very same thread, created separately from another one already ongoing on the same issue, is another unduly "reaction" from you to one of my actions. Just stop-hounding-my-activity-in-Wikipedia.
 * Please, some admin or uninvolved user close this pointless thread.  Impru 20 talk 12:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Help sorting out an ancient mess
Would a helpful admin take a look at this discussion about some ancient FAC pages that are in the wrong place? I think (but am not sure) that an admin's help is needed because two of the moves are going to be over redirects that used to be for other pages. I don't think any history merge will be needed but I'm not an expert, so I may be wrong about that. I've put a list at that talk page of the sequence of moves that are going to be needed to sort it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) Hey there -- just FYI, this noticeboard is for urgent behavioural issues, etc. Your request likely should go to requested moves.   M r A urelius R   Talk! 03:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So I see -- I'd always thought of RM as dealing with articles, but since it covers project pages too I'll post this request there. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Euro2024 - removal of self from admin noticeboard.
This user has removed a report on AIV. In addition they've repeatedly removed warning notices on their talk page (often with abusive edit summary), I believe done in bad faith to avoid escalation for edit warring/unexplained content removal. - Paul &#10092;talk&#10093; 12:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * NB notification given but removed, per this users pattern. --Paul &#10092;talk&#10093; 12:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno anything about htis dispute but Euro2024 attempted to remove this report and fundamentally change it... Praxidicae (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now blocked indef and also has been globally locked, apparently they've been up to the same stuff on multiple wikis. ~ mazca  talk 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

IP editor edit-warring on Heritability of IQ
The IP-editor 109.88.66.151 has been edit-warring on Heritability of IQ, repeatedly (5 times in 2 days) removing content concerning the scientific consensus against theories of genetic racial differences in intelligence. On one occasion the IP replaced it by the IP's POV sourced to fringe authors (Richard Lynn and Philippe Rushton), see. Three different editors have reverted the IP's edits, and editors have placed three warnings on the IP's talk page User_talk:109.88.66.151. The IP rejects the Wikipedia consensus (see ) that the belief that certain races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence is fringe, and is trying to promote a racialist POV. NightHeron (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the IP appears static, I've blocked it for 1 week in lieu of semi-protection. If the issue recurs, you can let me or another admin know. MastCell Talk 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Darren Grimes
Can someone please look at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ? The user is at over 10 reverts now and no action in 24 hours. As I said there, I believe a WP:NOTHERE block is probably appropriate given their edit history. SmartSE (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeffed as not here. Was only going to block for the edit warring, then I checked their other edits and it's clear they're here to bring justice and right great wrongs here on Wikipedia. So gone. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks SmartSE and User:Canterbury Tail. I revdeleted some of their racist statements; there is no reason to keep that in our archives. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP on Beer in Denmark and Ferrero SpA
Hello, I am requesting that be blocked or the above pages protected as this user has added exorbitant amounts of red links and WP:DIRECTORY information to the above pages, with disregard to a discussion on Talk:Beer in Denmark despite being told twice about this discussion on their talk page. They have been warned by multiple editors, and they have made no attempt to address the issues apart from leaving messages on other users' talk pages and edit summaries along the lines of "These brands/breweries exist, so stop reverting my edits", which does not address the issues in any way. Diffs: on Beer in Denmark, on Ferrero SpA, on Daim Bar. Thanks. Dylsss (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) There are also WP:BLP and WP:EXCESS issues on articles about members of the Ferrero family, e.g. Pietro Ferrero (diff) - adding and redlinking relatives without citations. Narky Blert (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now using to re-instate their changes on Beer in Denmark. I believe they've already gone past 3RR on this page. Dylsss (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's relevant, I believe the following IPs may be the same person, based on insistence on re-adding the same content to the same articles:, , , . Jessicapierce (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Too, too many IPs. I have semiprotected Pietro Ferrero, Beer in Denmark and Ferrero SpA for a month. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Oh, and Daim bar also. [Bishonen loses focus when Daim is mentioned.]. Mmmmm... Marabou! Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Thanks and smaklig måltid! By my reckoning (assuming it's the same user) the IP came within 8 minutes of 4 reverts in 24 hours. Looks like they are familiar with 3RR? Tammbeck  talk  17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy
I know we extend near-infinite latitude at WP:JIMBOTALK, but are we really going to let FloridaArmy continue to accuse people of racism and bigotry for failing to accept his draft articles? Guy (help! - typo?) 19:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't necessarily agree with everything said but are we going to stick our heads in a hole and pretend that people can't be those things and can't be here on Wikipedia? We don't know the heart motive of others so the only thing we have to go by are actions. I am the first to say we need to assume "good faith", especially in regards to new editors. But that isn't indefinite, nor is it meant to be indefinite, especially in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Otherwise the Administrators Board wouldn't see more traffic than Grand Central Station ever has. When I hear editors say that their purpose is to keep Wikipedia pure and how they are a champion for maintaining purity, which basically means a champion for exclusion, I tend to cringe at such uses because those same ideals have been used in the past against People of Color, Indigenous People and Women. When I see admins and editors touting their deletion record as a trophy it gives me pause. When I run across an editor who keeps record of the number of deletions vs creations and laments that the number of deletions does not outpace the number of creations it does cause me to wonder what the motive is? These things are not, in themselves, an indication one way or the other but it doesn't automatically mean it can't be the case either. Now, I don't think we should run around calling everyone who opposes us names or assuming the worst in everyone. In fact, I think the majority of issues arise from ignorance or strict adherence to what most have become used to calling their "standard operating procedure" (That's just the way I have always done it). I am a firm believer in WP:GNG but I am also a strong believer in WP:COMMONSENSE. I think we lean too much on keeping everything strictly by the book. It's ok to think outside the box a little. Go against the norms. Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs. That argument comes up in just about every AfD I have been involved in. I don't think Wikipedia could right great wrongs even if it wanted to. But it doesn't have to allow it to continue or even propagate it within its encyclopedia either. That's where common sense comes into play. Just a few cents worth from me. Take it for what it is. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is about WP:NPA. FA repeatedly asserts that anyone who does not think his drafts are notable, is a bigot. The reason he has to go via AfC is because so many of his direct mainspace creations got nuked as not notable. But no, in FA's world, all his article subjects are notable and editors who decline them are doing so out of racism. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally way more concerned with the vociferous anti-anti-racists; surely at some point "Yes I will show up to challenge every single time anyone suggests anything might be racist, but how dare you assume bad faith by pointing that out?" crosses over a line? --JBL (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As my rather fed-up comment on the issue summarizes, Florida's drafts are refused because they are bad, not because of systemic bias. That's not to say we don't have systemic bias, we have a lot of it, but I do agree that Florida should focus on the core of the issue and stop saying reviewers are being bigots . And maybe also stop highjacking discussions to try to get his drafts approved.  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FA has asked me to strike that comment, claiming they didn't call anyone a bigot. I have done so, though I remain incredulous, as the title of the thread they opened was "Bigotry on Wikipedia"...and then linked a bunch of drafts...thus seeming to insinuate that AfC reviewers were part of the problem. I await their enlightenment as to whom they were calling bigots. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , and that is exactly the problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FA's comments at your talk page stretch the bounds of credulity. They used the header 'Bigotry on Wikipedia' and then complained about specific drafts that have been declined. Whether they intended for us to connect the dots or not, some of us obviously did. If FA did not intend to imply bigotry on the part of specific people, they should have chosen their words more carefully. But instead of taking responsibility for their poor communication, FA dropped a massive ABF bomb on your talk page instead. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 07:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not acceptable to accuse an individual editor of racism without clear proof. A while ago I warned FA to stop doing that.  As far as I can tell, he has stopped doing that.  I don't think listing declined articles he thinks should be accepted, as evidence of a systemic problem, counts.  If he was naming names, it would be a problem. It is COMPLETELY FINE to accuse Wikipedia as a whole of systemic racism.  It is completely fine to say our notability standards are racist.  If you don't like the idea that we are, to a first approximation, as racist as society at large, don't listen to him.  Ditto if you find him annoying.  If you're sympathetic but think he's focusing on the wrong thing, or misinterprets our notability standards, discuss it with him.  If you agree completely with him, give him a barnstar.  Let's not silence critics who are criticizing Wikipedia or its processes; even if the criticism is wrong, it's healthy.  Only individual accusations are concerning.  A case could be made that saying editors were "puffing their chest" on Jimbo's talk page is suboptimal, but (a) it's weaker than what we let almost anyone get away with, (b) it's a little bit true, and (c) he's talking about me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, and listing the articles, when we can see the names of the people who declined them? I actually think FA does good work, but does he ever have a double-barrelled automatic feed footgun. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misinterpreting the intent, but I don't read FA's message as an accusation of bigotry, but more of a frustrated statement that his repeated rejections are a reflection of a problem that impedes the creation of new articles that would actually help increase racial diversity in the article space. It may come across as petty and dubious, and Eek's assessment that FA's creations are rejected because they're simply bad may well be correct, but I think that's what FA was trying to say here. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm all for helping increase racial diversity in article space, but it has to be done while adhering to the guidelines. I've worked on FA's drafts, and I've tried to work with FA; the first is difficult, the second frustrating to the point where I can no longer look at their articles, as interesting as I find the topics. Joseph Crews was enough. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (et al) Just putting this out there for all of us to think but can that truthfully be met when the guidelines themselves are exclusionary or biased and maybe even racist, specifically when perceived in a strictly to be adhered to way? That is not to say that those who view it like this are racist. We are all predisposed to bias. It's how we form opinions. It's not always a bad thing. I love fruit, others may not. On its basic level that is a bias. I also get that the encyclopedia has to have policies and guidelines but everything I have read, in regards to those, is that common sense has to be applied. No policy or guideline was intended to be used as a weapon to be exclusionary. I fully understand the frustration of some editors who see the encyclopedia being biased to certain subjects. I agree that articles shouldn't have conjecture or opinion in them, especially when few sources can be found, but if we know that a subject of the article was most likely notable, even if temporarily, for its time and place and the article only speaks to the sources that can be provided then we should use common sense and allow that article to be included. We can't right wrongs but we don't have to perpetuate them either. I don't know FA, outside of the limited time we have talked here. I don't know any of you outside of our conversations. I find most, including FA and even those whose ideas I oppose in the moment, to be exceptional individuals and I value your opinions and insight. We can battle over policy, guidelines and opinions but NO ONE here is my enemy.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Drmies noted an article I created that I finally took off my watchlist and stopped working on completely because Drmies, a Wikipedia administrator, insisted on changing the description of a man murdered for doing business with African Americans and supporting their right to vote from Radical Republican to Scalawag. Perhaps User:Floquenbeam can provide some kind of defense for editors who slur murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out, but as far as I'm concerned these actions are beyond the pale. When we come across bias, racism, and bigotry on Wikipedia we must speak out against it. Am I now going to be exterminated from Wikipedia for pointing out an administrator's improper slurring of the murdered victim of White supremacy? Is it okay that we don't have an article on African American cinema? How many dishonest attacks and misrepresentations from Guy must I endure? Some of these same editors helped censor the Racial views of Joe Biden entry which is now completely protected in draft space from even editing, IN DRAFT SPACE, while we have lots and lots of other Racial views articles. But surely there is no bias here. And anyone claiming there is must be eliminated. Racism is a phenomenon of the right according to Guy and there was nothing socialist about the Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Might as well ban me and get it over with because I am going to continue to create lots of absolutely awful articles on these subjects and yell from the highest mountain top about the disgraceful and hurtful bigotry one must endure here. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This, on the other hand, is accusing a specific editor of "slurring murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out". Since there have been multiple warnings to stop accusing editors of stuff like that without clear evidence, I've blocked Florida Army for 1 week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sure "the masses" cheer the decision to silence a critic and Wikipedia's "purity" is all the more safe for it.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What kind of fuckwittery is this? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's called criticism of a decision. Do you feel you are above criticism?--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where do you get off equating a one-week preventative block to the martyrdom of "silencing a critic"?--WaltCip- (talk)  14:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I have as much right to voice my opinion as you do. The block is intended to silence him, not just now but also after he returns. It's a tool to cause him to be more timid, pliable, and less of a challenge. That's why you block. To even suggest that its implications were meant to only last a week is disingenuous whether you agree with what he said or not and irrelevant of whether you agree with the decision or not. I'm apparently not as afraid of being challenged like some here judging by the comments. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And here's me thinking it's to stop people getting accused of being in cahoots with white supremacists just because they did some maintenance work. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 14:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion you are entitled to have. I guess we will see in a week if he returns at all. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is an absurd statement. FA gets a lot of slack because we appreciate the work he does in countering our systemic bias. Any other user with this history of drama would have been banned long ago. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is absurd is calling the comment or opinion of another editor "fuckwittery" just because you may not agree with it. I have an opinion. It differs from others. I have my reasons for why as many do. I'm not expecting it to be accepted by everyone. I can even take it being challenged. I will not sit here and be insulted and demeaned by anyone. I am done with this conversation and most of you here who participated. You are no better than FA by your responses. Good luck trying to build a consensus with such hate being thrown around. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yet another belligerent non-seqitur from you. I see a pattern emerging... Guy (help! - typo?) 12:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I said I was done. You brought me back. I tagged you so I will give you that. I appreciate your opinion but it amounts to nothing of importance to me, personally, because all of you have lost the high ground by throwing around your banter and attacking those with dissenting views. Calling me "belligerent" like I am some two-year old you are babysitting is, yet again, an insult directed at me and shows your propensity to get personal. I won't resort to such. I addressed the situation. I gave my opinion. Accept it or don't. I haven't called anyone here by names. I haven't demeaned anyone or their opinion. I spoke to a greater issue on Wikipedia that most here would agree exists. I believe this block feeds that narrative and there are other ways to deal with the situation at hand. What's done is done. I have my own projects to work on. Thank you. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are non-vulgar words to use, Floquenbeam, when people disagree with us. Please consider refraining from choosing a swear (or swear-adjacent??) word when so many others would suffice. Thank you. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware I had other choices in wording when I responded. Your first sentence is patronizing.  It fascinates me that you choose not to address the fact that I was accused of "silencing a critic of Wikipedia" to ensure our "purity".  Purity was in quotes, by the way, making clear the parallel with KKK or Nazi interests in purity.  That doesn't bother you, that's just "disagreeing with me".  But you find it necessary to complain that I used "swear adjacent" language.   Your priorities are screwed up; I think somehow you think I was less civil than Tsistunagiska. Perhaps you'd have been more comfortable if I had insulted their motives, but with no swear words?  I said nothing about their motives, only the quality of their comment, and they're the one who feels "demeaned"?  Fuck that.  Another eggshell armed with a hammer. I am firmly of the opinion that they were much less civil than I was.  I'm slightly disappointed more people (thanks, WaltCip and Reyk and Guy) didn't call them on it.  I am firmly of the opinion that the actual meaning of words matter more than whether they have four letters or not.  Given this lack of judgement on your part, I don't think I value your opinion on this, so please don't bother pinging if you reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fascinated Floquenbeam... apparently with my screwed up priorities? Oh....kay. I can't tell if Floquenbeam wants the last word or wants to goad me into wasting my time on a long response. I'll compromise: for the record, I just meant kindness is cool and that sort of third-grade character development whatever, Floquenbeam. My bad for wanting things not to get worse by semantics rather than by content. Seriously, why would I expect anything but a tongue-lashing in October 2020, even from an admin? I shake my head at myself. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If anyone is wondering to which degree I am a white supremacist or spread their ideology or suppress article content about the victims of white racism or punish editors who write up those articles, this is what I found in June, which had already been turned down. This was my first edit. FA took offense to the term "scalawag", which indeed is considered a slur these days, but note what the lead on our article says: "The term is commonly used in historical studies as a descriptor of Southern white Republicans". Skip a few edits (and my moving it to mainspace), and we get this comment from FA, and then this--the problem here that it's not "resentful" (or, in the next edit, "some") Southerners who applied that term, it's the author of this academically published book. So FA's comment was editorial commentary, as I indicated here, and I attributed the quote here, making the term part of a direct quotation. But see also this edit summary by FA, proving an assessment of the academic peer-reviewed work in the edit summary. In the end, the article got on the front page (I nominated it for DIY, giving FA credit as well), which is, I imagine, one of the things we can do to fill in the blanks left by years of systemic racism in the US that has left many important historical figures out of school textbooks and discussions of history. And it's for this, for these edits, that FA calls me out as a racist? Crews was indeed "a man murdered for doing business with African Americans and supporting their right to vote", but you'd never guess that from FA's draft. And I "slur murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out"? I never slurred Crews, as the edits above should show, nor did I "enforce punishment" on FA or anyone else for pointing out anything. Look through my article creations, including this, and you'll see plenty of content aimed at improving Wikipedia's coverage in these topic areas. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That article also notes, immediately following the quotation given above, that the term is deprecated by modern historians due to its pejorative implications (paraphrasing, I already closed the tab). Frankly I agree with FloridaArmy here, to the extent of the content issue and assuming instead that Drmies meant well and wasn't just out to be racist on purpose. It was not necessary to repeatedly reinsert this racial slur into the lede of this article. There is better, more descriptive, and less culturally insensitive language that we could have used. There is no more academic purpose to referring to Joseph Crews as a "scalawag" in the lede than there would be to calling John F. Kennedy a mackerel snapper (whether or not he was actually called that I don't know, but he was famously dogged by anti-Catholic sentiment throughout his career). We could have and should have done better.
 * Conversely, there's a way to approach disagreement about this kind of thing without assuming that everyone with a different opinion to yours is a bigot, and especially without calling them that in writing. FloridaArmy has a point, but made it in the worst possible way. I endorse this block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ivanvector, it's used as a slur in partisan debates, that's what our article says (FWIW), but the citation should make it clear that the term comes from the title of a book published by Johns Hopkins, a book which should thus not be considered as a player in a partisan debate. For the record, I just read six reviews of the book (five through JSTOR), which BTW is praised almost unanimously; the book is about Franklin J. Moses Jr., still reviled in some parts of the country for *gasp* seeking an alliance with African-Americans, and vilified for his Jewish background. More than one reviewer comments that this is a useful attempt at reassessing the man's reputation (a 1998 survey concluded he was the worst governor ever of South Carolina). But to the point: the term "scalawag" is used without scare quotes and as a "regular" word in three of those reviews and one review cites the author with approbation, "Revisiting the story of the South's 'most perfect scalawag', Ginsberg contributes to a broader understanding of the essential role southern Jews played during the Civil War and Reconstruction." So I think I'm on firm ground here, having treated it as a neutral term. Nevertheless, it's best to be clear, I thought after FA's comment, and so I put it in quotes and attributed it explicitly. So I don't think the critique was proper, even if FA had gone about it without accusing me of ... well whatever he's still accusing me of. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Never heard the term scalawag until today, but scallywag is sometimes used in the UK, in the useage described on the dab page, and usually in a comic-style. "Our PM - he's a a right scallywag!"  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a pirate word. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's a term of endearment in Liverpool. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I bet there's other Liverpudlian terms of endearment that could get one in on-WP trouble. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , the attributed quote seems to em to be valid and appropriate in context - it establishes how the subject was perceived contemporaneously. It's a good use of attribution and a rare good use of "not censored". Regardless, there is, as you say, no way that Drmies is guilty of any of the things of which FA accuses him. That level of rhetoric from FA is wholly inappropriate and indicative of an unacceptable battleground mentality. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that FA is unblocked. The block does appear to be unfair, based on FA's generic whingeing, which did not mention a specific person. FA has a lot of work to do having started more drafts than can be edited to article standard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And here I was thinking that Drmies was a specific person, named directly and indirectly ("an administrator") repeatedly by FloridaArmy, as repeated (thus confirmed and strengthened) after the block on his user talk page. Feel free to oppose the block, but please reread the above discussion and correct your error. A speficic, named person was clearly and repeatedly accused of bigotry and the like. Fram (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mass addition of unsourced dates
Nearly every one of the 789 edits made by this editor has been to add a birth date or death date to a list of people. This has been done by:
 * clicking an article in a list of people
 * copying the birth and death date
 * pasting the dates into the list article.

My concern is that frequently the dates being entered are not supported anywhere in the biography or the list article by a source. At their most recent edit at List of Puerto Ricans, the very first date added was for Ursula Acosta (born January 14, 1933 and died September 10, 2018), but in at the Ursula Acosta article, there is no source to support these dates.

See this edit at List of Argentines where dates were added for Miguel Najdorf, though if you look at the Miguel Najdorf article, it was tagged as needing additional citations five years ago, and there is nothing in the article to support his birth date. On some list articles, this editor added birth and death dates to redlinked names. We're looking at thousands of dates added, and none of them with any source to support they are correct.

This editor has made no response on their talk page to multiple editors, an issued addressed at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I blocked the user for 48h and provided the link to their talk page in the block notice.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Scope_creep
Afternoon admins; may I bring up the rather poor conduct of Scope_creep after they referenced an AfD closure of mine. They come storming into my talk page demanding I reverse the closure of Articles for deletion/RDS (group of companies) or otherwise it would come here, essentially a theoretical case of blackmail, then blame the fact of a lack of skill on my part, which although I do put my hand up to; but I wasn't expecting the sheer strong attitude that they come out with. I see the user has been banned once before after another AfD dispute, and recently, of all things. Ultimately if they had been rather less strong with their attitude I would have obliged with their request. Obviously I feel it is right I should report it here. I don't think I have interacted with the user prior to this incident, so all the same, this is waaay out of the blue. <b style="color: black">Night</b><b style="color: black">fury</b> 14:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was clear case of WP:BADNAC and he shouldn't be closing Afd's as he is not particularly good at it. He is not competent. I'm firm believer of people fixing their mistakes before reporting them.   scope_creep Talk  15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , we have ways of handling bad closes. Unilateral undoing of them by the nominator is not one of them - not even at at BADNAC which allows an uninvolved administrator to do so. Further you didn't really undo the close - Cyberbot had to restore the deletion tag on the article and the article's talk page says it was kept. I think I am as vocal as anyone about non-administrative closes (and relists) at AfD and still my initial look into this is that your conduct here created problems that Nightfury's close did not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is process to do it. I never knew it about. This is first one I suggested as WP:BADNAC. This is the 4th Afd in as many weeks I've seen, where somebody has come in a closed it, improperly.   scope_creep Talk  15:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This proves a point, we all have bad days. Everybody is still learning, regardless of how long they have been on Wikipedia. <b style="color: black">Night</b><b style="color: black">fury</b> 15:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Challenged closes can go to DRV. Bad NAC get overturned as an individual administrative action regularly. And I am with yout that there are a lot of bad NACs. It's why I'm trying to change our policies/guidelines around it, but that doesn't excuse a nominator unilaterally doing it, and then, as the cherry on top, doing so partially/incorrectly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Crikey even I know that, and Scope says I have no experience... 😒 <b style="color: black">Night</b><b style="color: black">fury</b> 15:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a particularly helpful comment Nightfury. You came here to get input from other editors and are getting it. You'll likely also get some feedback yourself (I'm trying to finish up something else before I dive into your work at AfD) and responding there is appropriate. This comment is not. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to it, Regardless, like I said above everyone is still learning. You will have to forgive my absence for a few hours from now, as I will be travelling home. <b style="color: black">Night</b><b style="color: black">fury</b> 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflicts) The issue here at ANI is not whether the closure was correct, but whether your "all guns blazing" approach at this editor's talk page, along with irrelevant personal comments, was correct. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , this looks like a learning opportunity for you. If you'd checked the contribution history of the !voters and read the source analysis by Scope Creep, you would not I think have concluded that this was a candidate for a keep. A relist may have been unproblematic though. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the AfD closes of Nightfury's that are in his last five hundred edits and which stretch back to July. My findings build off what Guy wrote above but on the whole I don't see, under our current policies/guidelines/procedures enough to suggest that Nightfury should not be closing AfDs as scope creep suggested. I think this incident was a bad close as keep and should have been relisted and does reflect some learning they need. In general I think Nightfury is a too quick to close as keep (e.g. Articles for deletion/Guild of St. Stephen). I also think that their relisting comments are sometimes more leading than helpful (e.g. Articles for deletion/Alwyn Simpson) but the relists themselves are appropriate. So I don't think there's really anything to be done with nightfury at this time. And I expressed, above, my concerns with scope's conduct in this incident which I also don't think is needing sanction beyond being remindinformed (informinded?) about how to handle this problem in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. <b style="color: black">Night</b><b style="color: black">fury</b> 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I noticed in the AFD that ScopeCreep commented in the discussion before reverting Nightfury's close. Isn't there an expectation that an involved editor should not participate in a close (with the exception of listing a close at deletion review). --Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment — I think we do not appreciate ’s frustration here maybe because some of us haven’t experienced it & as one who has, it is very much frustrating & very annoying seeing a non-admin wrongly closing an AFD, I personally would have headed straight to DRV first then would leave a message on the talk page of the editor who did the BADNAC, basically saying what Scope creep said, but wording it better. Yes, when there are over a 1000 admins good at closing AFD’s, an editor with limited experience at closing AFD’s shouldn’t run into a field where experienced admins tread with caution. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Huldra re-inserting into Ganei Tikva his OR transliteration of the Hebrew name into Arabic
 As I explained in my edit summary, the spelling "غني تيكفا" is not used by any sources whatsoever; yet, User:Huldra insists on re-inserting it, violating WP:NOR. --Crash48 (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the second diff above, Huldra's edit summary is "this is on Palestinian village land, and you should not be editing here". I don't know the guideline about lang-ar usage but it is common for place names to be given in a variety of relevant languages. I suspect the second part of the edit summary is referring to the fact that has under 250 edits and does not satisfy WP:500/30. The attitude shown at Crash48's talk shows that a topic ban might be in order. Any uninvolved administrator can arrange that and I'll look more closely later. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the dispute is what is actually the Arabic name of the place (does it derive from the Hebrew name or not), which is a meaningful question and should be discussed at the talk page of the article. However, it is not happening for the time being. I have extended confirmed protected the article, because it indeed should not be edited by non-extended-confirmed users anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This new editor, Crash48 may need either a warning or a topic ban. He is uncivil and disruptive as he rejects discussion when he thinks the policy is on his side. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

New User:Crash48 disruptive and uncivil behavior in Israeli-Palestinian topics
The user going by the name "Crash48" has made his first edit this May. So far, he has made 230+ edits in the English Wikipedia. Most of his edits are unreferenced, but that is completely forgivable for a new editor. The problem is his disruptive and uncivil behavior.

This user has shifted his focus to Israel related articles last month. Most of his edits are clearly in good faith and many of them are constructive and it seems that by now he is providing a reference to information he is adding, which is a step in the right direction.

The problem arose with a series of edits earlier this week, in which he removed the Arab transliterated names of Jewish-Israeli places. On a personal note, I don't completely disagree with this, as the I/P area is full of POV pushing, often done in good faith. User:Huldra has reverted some of these on the 50/300 rule that maintains that only extended-confirmed editors can edit articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. here you can see the discussion between the two. Crash48 asks Huldra how does the 50/300 apply in that case and explains his edits. Huldra gives her reply, and Crash48 decided to report to this page against Huldra.

I have also confronted Crash48 for these edits here and asked him to cease them. His immediate reply was uncivil and claimed his edits are backed by "accepted practice" and demanded me to revert my edits. I asked him what is that accepted practice and he linked to me a Wikipedia guideline and demanded again I revert my edits. I confronted him about the policy, stating it doesn't necessarily back his edits. he replied again to my comment, and again, demanded I revert my edits. Seeing that a discussion with the user is difficult, I reminded him that edits must also be backed by a consensus, and he doesn't have one right now, he should open a discussion and reach one. He replied by saying there is a consensus and referred to a list of articles whose lead sections are similar to his approach. I told him this is not a consensus and he as a new editor should read WP:CONSENSUS and offered help, to which he replied in a sarcastic and uncivil manner.

Since this user is unwilling to cooperate with users who don't necessarily agree with his own views, and when confronted with two experienced editors on the field he dismissed the first and filed a report against the other I think some action needs to be done because the I/P field really doesn't need any more disruptions. There are conflicting opinions all the time between different editors of different backgrounds and opinions, but the work is done through discussion and consensus and not threw policies in the face of editors.

The user does not seem to have a strict and disruptive POV. In other editors, the user does acknowledge an Arab connection to places as seen here, here and here and in the more recent examples, he also provides reference. In another case, he proves to be able to make sourced and constructive edits.

At first, he must accept not to edit articles related or closely related to the I/P conflict until he will be an extended-confirmed user. Secondly, he must agree to continue editing while refraining from the disruptive and uncivilized discourse and if necessary, get a warning or a temporary ban.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, WP:ARBPIA does not cancel out WP:NOR; so, complying with 's demand that I don't edit the article in question myself, I brought the issue here, so that Huldra's blatant OR gets removed from the article by those qualified to do so.
 * As for 's message at my talk page, anyone can see that it was anything but civil, so I imitated his own patronizing tone when answering him. Despite his claimed experience, he was evidently ignorant of WP:NCGN. Furthermore, this page says in red at the very top, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. has not done so, demonstrating once again his disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines. --Crash48 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is the article subject to ARBPIA? If anything, at all, would be ARBPIA, it would be the contents that are applicable to ARBPIA. But this was a content dispute on what the Arabic name is or isn't for the town. There is no reason to sanction or to place the article under ECP. This is more of Huldra going into Israeli place names and trying to put it under ARBPIA sanctions, when again, if any should apply, it would apply to just one sentence of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One clue is that all the usual suspects are involved, along with a returned user. Then there is Ganei Tikva: "formed in 1949, located on the land of the Palestinian village of Al-'Abbasiyya...". That means there will always be ARBPIA conflict. From what I have observed on articles unrelated to this topic, it is fairly common to include names used by other groups even if they lost. OTOH that might be nationalistic POV pushing, I don't know. But it is reasonably common from what I have seen. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent addition of promotional autobiographies with copyright violations


Numerous drafts and unnecessary redirects, as well as several mainspace versions. I don't know if more versions or additional sock/meat puppets exist; Adam Benjamin James and Adam Benjamin James (Australia Humanitarian) are the main articles. User has ignored policy and warnings for the past four days, and is only here for self-promotional purposes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Cypriot Nationalist
is making repeated accusations of vandalism while restoring unreferenced content (see example 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), as well as calling me a a "bit slow" and a "troll" for daring to enforce core content policy. FDW777 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Like I have already said to you multiple times (For the M16 and Exocets at least as that is what this started by), the video was a perfectly valid reference YOU simply chose to disregard it and tried being smart about it, I linked you at least 3 sources to do with the Exocets and you still erased it and even IF I was in the wrong, how does that explain you deleting most of the page? Ive literally had to spend half an hour bringing a few of the things you vandalised back and the Wikipedia admins will see that you erased most of it. In fact most of what you erased was referenced, so yes you are a troll because you are clearly trying to start something up in order to get a rise. Additionally, even if you were to use the unreferenced argument, from the stuff you deleted, 90% of it could be found in virtually any GreekCypriot military parade youd find on youtube or at this link: http://www.army.gov.cy/el/page/home. Since you want to do this I will also link the sites for the Exocets and the video which clearly shows the M16 Rifle.

M16: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRSHBZsS-X4

Exocet missiles: https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/02/08/cyprus-signs-e240-mln-french-missiles-contract/

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26314/MBDA_Sells_Mistral__Exocet_Missiles_to_Cyprus__French_Media#.X4n7OdBKiUk

https://www.financialmirror.com/2020/02/07/cyprus-signs-e240-mln-french-missiles-contract/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot Nationalist (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you need to read what vandalism is not. You also need to stop edit warring and start citing reliable sources for all challenged edits. It doesn't matter if a source could be found, if there is no source then the content can and should be removed. You have fewer than 50 edits, and you are throwing your weight around as if you are an established expert with extensiove knowledge of Wikipedia who is dealing with a neophyte. In fact, FDW777 is reasonably experienced, so you might make more progress by asking for advice rather than through belligerence. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * They were a sockpuppet, they are blocked. ST47 (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer
Lima Bean Farmer ("LBF") is terribly keen, but really a bit of a problem. Already pageblocked from List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, LBF has previously initiated an attempt at an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Political endorsements attempting to override the substantial community RfC that ruled all political endorsements that led to this policy: Despite this clear knowledge of the consensus position, LBF continues to add references by the dozen to self-published, unreliable or affiliated sources, basically copying in lists from random websites that don't meet RS, with rapid-fire additions of multiple names (,, ,, and dozens more) often drawn form the same primary sources. I don't think LBF applies any discrimination at all to source selection. A classic example would be this edit adding "Truthout" (reliability on a par with Daily Kos) as a source, followed by a series of about 40 edits adding others from the same list.
 * 1) Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people.
 * 2) Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
 * 3) Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".

In total LBF has made over 1,300 edits to that article, and it is not an exaggeration to say that hundreds of them have used primary, affiliated or unreliable sources (e.g. blogs). Over half of LBF's 4,500 edits have been to endorsement lists in this campaign cycle, virtually none of them discussed. The edits by and, the other top contributors to the page, seem to be individual, each cited to a different source, with no unreliable ones in the sample I looked at.

I think LBF needs to be topic-banned from mainspace edits to campaign endorsements for the duration because cleaning this up is exhausting and attempts to remove those which lack independent sources, LBF reverts. While it's likely that a clear majority of Wikipedia editors hope thast Biden wins on November 3, Wikipedia is really not here to try to make it happen - but LBF, I would argue, is. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Eissink (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC).
 * I have as an individual arbitration enforcement action topic banned them from American Politics for 3 months - which should get us through the election and also hopefully any post-election shenanigans. An endorsement only topic ban just felt like an invitation to disrupt other election related elements and so I went with the broader topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, why?!? Guy Reverted a whole bunch of edits on this page which became unsourced. Since then, I have not added anything from blogs or any primary sources. That was a different editor. You’re confused on this. Plus, why is the art source not reliable? I didn’t see it in the list of deprecated sources. And I don’t think it’s primary, is it? My point is, I’ve been making very useful contributions and trying to improve as an editor. Look at all of the edits I’ve made today. I added Alex Rodriguez and Jennifer Lopez based on CNN. I added Justice democrats based on Fox (the news organization, not the entertainment or whatever we call the unreliable branch), a bunch of tribal leaders from a news source which I’m not sure why it was deleted (I have reports from several Native American news sources reporting the endorsement), added some singers who were reported as being part of the “Team Joe Sings” which supports the campaign (reported, not on the Joe Biden campaign website), and removed some photos and deleted some names that weren’t attributed to a source that said they endorse. Have you seen the contributions I’ve made to Trump’s endorsement page too? I don’t know how you can count (I edit from an iPhone) but it must’ve been hundreds of additions. While I do have a personal preference in this election (as most Wikipedia editors do and should) I do not let this affect my editing on Wikipedia. I even added to Jo Jorgensen’s page. I am not here to influence the election or attempt to sway Wikipedia one way or another. In fact I’ve done almost the opposite of that (I’ve deleted tons of sources that were just twitter or YouTube or Facebook from all endorsement pages including presidential, senatorial, and members of the house) for both parties to be specific (or more if there was another party running). I hope this is enough to convince the community that I should not be blocked from American history entirely. Once again, after Guy or Jz or whatever that editors name is removed the primary sources, I did not add any primary sources back and I apologize if the art or even the native articles are not from primary sources, but I would like to be given the chance to add new sources. I don’t know why making an rfc to discuss this would affect this decision. As soon as I learned those sources were primary I stopped adding them and started an rfc. Just because you don’t want to revisit the subject doesn’t mean you can block me over wanting to. I’m here to build the encyclopedia clearly, not just add whatever I want. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see a massive discussion on your talk page regarding OR, SYNTH, and other content policies in one election article (and where some very experienced editors try to help you). I then see a credible report of further issues presented here by Guy on a different but related article. I don't, at all, doubt your good intentions to help improve our coverage, regardless of political party. I do, unfortunately, have cause for concern about your ability to do it within our content guidelines for this topic area. And thus why I enacted the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, I very much so see your concern. However I’d like to state that the original research was based solely on me not interpreting the term “oppose” correctly. Plus, I have figured it out on the talk page with the other administrators, taken their advice (you can see all of their advice, I addressed all problems), and I am still not editing there. In fact, I made a request over a day ago for someone to add something and it has been ignored ever since. I have always taken the term endorse very seriously. Check my talk page again, see the barn star? Even today I deleted five endorsements due to the source not stating they are endorsements. I remove non endorsements just as quickly as I add endorsements (maybe even quicker, easier to add then delete). As for the sources which I added, I did not add them back, another editor did. As for the painting and the tribal endorsements, no one has yet to tell me why they were deleted. If it was because the source was not reliable or independent, I have other sources which are that also list these endorsements. I request that you lift this ban and I will offer you the condition that I agree to discuss the reliability and independence of all sources before adding any content to a Wikipedia page regarding this election in 2020. Does that sound fair? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d also like to point out that is currently blocked from that page, so they must’ve done something wrong too. Just saying, since it was used as an example. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that I replied to this user at my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked that carefully at your history, but what I've seen is enough to cause significant concern. You've been blocked twice from List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign, and have only recently been allowed back on that article talk page. I see a bunch of experienced editors trying to counsel you on your talk page about the problems with your editing there. Despite that, I see similar problems with the List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. If you are adding an uncertain source like Native News Online or TruthOut and you have historically had problems judging the reliability of a source, it's probably better to ask before you add 50-100 people sourced to those sources. I assume you understand that not appearing on WP:RSPS and not being a primary source does not make a source a reliable independent source, and especially with highly contentious areas you should have some ability to judge source reliability. Also your style of editing adds to the problem. If you are 50 people in one edit source to the same source, at least they can be easily reverted if there is a problem with that source, which doesn't negate the problems will ill-judged additions but still makes it a little easier to handle. If you add 50 people from one source in a series of 50 edits it can be a lot harder to revert especially if there are edit conflicts. I appreciate you're editing from a mobile device & even on a desktop resolving edit conflicts can be annoying. Yet if you're worried about edit conflicts that actually fairly proves the point you need to be certain if you're adding 50 people there won't be a need to revert all 50 because the source isn't suitable. (And there are intermediates which may help e.g. adding 10 people in one edit.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne, as much as I would like to disagree with you, all of the points you made are valid. I apologize for the style of editing and I get how that can be annoying for editors who want to revert my edits, but it is almost impossible to add more than a few people on an iPhone. The page regularly reloads and deletes everything and I can’t edit more than one category at a time. But that’s beyond the point. I have agreed to, in exchange for the ban to be lifted, use the talk page to discuss with (experienced) editors before each addition of a person to an endorsement page. Even a NYT or CNN article, I agree to still discuss and verify addition before it is made. To be honest, if someone just told me this to begin with (discuss before adding) I would have been doing this for a long time. I would like to both agree to not do this again, and also would like to offer a formal apology to all editors who had to spend their time fixing my errors. I am genuinely here to both build the article but also keep it verifiable (I have deleted many non endorsements, twitter/social media endorsements, and excessive photos). Please consider my proposal. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban violation
I think LBF doesn't understand what a topic ban means, since these edits (made just hours after the topic ban was enacted), are clear violations. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reverted. JzG and I have both left stern warnings on the user's talk page. Probably even a single further violation would result in a block. --Yamla (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red Rock Canyon, I did not and I apologize. I thought it was like a block where not like literally everything has been taken away. It won’t happen again until I get unbanned. Now could you please look at my proposed unban request/offer? Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Meninistagainstvegans
Judging by their first and only edit and their username, it's clear is WP:NOTHERE. Beryllium Sphere (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User has now been blocked by . Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 11:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User: 156.57.205.40
This user has been asked/warned three times to start using edit summaries and for whatever reason refuses to do so. In fact, refuses to even acknowledge the requests on his/her talk page. Editing history is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/156.57.205.40 Perhaps a soft block until such time as the user shows up to address the issue? <b style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  19:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Although using edit summaries is good practice and should be encouraged, it is not required. Blocking only for failure to use edit summaries is not appropriate, although it may be part of a broader failure to communicate. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And would you rather have an editor use no edit summaries, or use uncivil edit summaries containing profanity and insults? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-existent edit summaries do not create work for administrators in keeping Wikipedia clean. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know that we would rather have good edit summaries, but .... Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hoax/Self-promotional edits
A lot of hoax and possibly self-promotional edits are coming from the range 103.203.92.0/22 in television articles. Has been going on since at least mid-last year, the user has been hoaxing dates of non-existent show closures, connecting unrelated channels and adding an obscure cable service to TV channel articles (likely self-promotion/spam). Needs a range block at this point, has been hopping IPs, been reverted multiple times but still continues disrupting. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced edits
Despite several warnings, including 2 final ones as well as a personal plea from myself in September, Rad-Emo013 continues to add unsourced genres to articles. Their only communication regarding these concerns was an attempt to antagonize, as can be seen here. It should also be noted that they were previously warned against uncivil behavior. Examples of these unsourced edits can be seen here, here and here. I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look please.  Rob van  vee  16:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked this editor, leaving clear instructions about what they need to do to get unblocked. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always .  Rob van  vee  04:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism assistance at my talk page
Hello, could someone semi-protect my talk page please? I'm getting a shower of angry messages from an anon editor. Thanks. Captain Calm (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected your talk page and blocked the main IP harasser. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Captain Calm (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

IP keeps pushing spelling variant with deceptive edit note: "Fixed typo" continuing
Since the last discussion Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047, has been blocked twice but hasn't stopped. Even if it hasn't read Talk pages, it already knows it's causing trouble because it is repeatingly editing the same articles that has been reverted.

Its activity cycle has a 7 days interval, which day-of-week of its "weekend hobby" shifts monthly, so I guess 2-days-blocks are ineffective if done right after its edits, perhaps even got unnoticed. Better cover its activity cycle. --Wotheina (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest referring to the IP as "they" rather than "it" (the latter being dehumanizing). JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The same /64 range was blocked twice back in September for the same reason, but for short times. I've now blocked the /64 for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikihounding by
The issue is connected to a previous one I raised a few weeks ago here. While that one was archived due to inactivity (the user stopped all editing shortly after I filled it) they have come back up again when I edited President of the Valencian Government earlier today (diff). The user has reacted by editing a number of non-related articles which I had edited earlier throughout the day (note that their edits had little to do with my own edits there, but rather, were related to their own stance in the Talk:President of the Valencian Government discussion).

It should be noted that the user has not edited Wikipedia at all for about three weeks, nor has engaged in any discussion. Rather, this seems a reaction to my edits at President of the Valencian Government, in an attempt to piss me off or to prevent me from conducting any edit in that article, which seems to be continuing at a behavioural pattern of ownership over that article's contents. This is openly disruptive, disgusting and creepy and needs to be stopped ASAP.  Impru 20 talk 19:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, as I understand it, we are all free to collaborate on Wikipedia for as long as we want and in whatever way we see fit. And that's what I do. You have made and you make edits similar to mine adding timelines and I don't think you consider yourself a bad contributor.
 * I would also ask you to stop interpreting my words. I have never claimed ownership of any item, no matter how much you insist. I believe that the changes I add improve the articles. And I would also ask you to lower the tone. I do not think it appropriate to be offended by alleged offenses when you use the adjectives "disruptive, disgusting and creepy". I am as tired of you as you are of me and I have not used that verbal violence.
 * Also, you still maintain that my changes are wrong because "things in Wikipedia are done as I say". And it is not true, as I have already shown. And you continue to insist on breaking the visual aesthetic, with names in black and names in blue, as in the table of the presidents of Aragon. You do not want to reach any kind of compromise, such as looking for an intermediate size that satisfies us (or leaves us equally displeased) and you do not want to give in to maintain the slightest visual coherence.--Baprow (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with you, guy? You have been absent from Wikipedia for three weeks. Then, when I chose to implement an edit at President of the Valencian Government that I had already announced three weeks prior, you have gone to immediately edit that one as well as those other articles that I had edited today! You have refused to discuss anything for three weeks (and indeed, for most of the time we have interacted), and you only react whenever an edit is done in "your" article. Don't play like it's my fault or something when I've attempted to seek a compromise on the issue. Instead, you have reacted by bringing such issues to every article I edit!
 * This is disgusting and sick. Not just that you seemingly have that article on your watch 24/7 so that you can react whenever someone edits it. You are absolutely obsessed with me and with your absurd aesthetical issues, and have now come to the point of hounding me because I don't agree with those. That's fucking creepy, pal. Creepy, disruptive and disgusting. Leave-me-alone and stop chasing me and my edits throughout Wikipedia!  Impru 20 talk 22:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That you have tried to find a compromise? Are you really saying that? When? When you said that all my edits were wrong? When you do not even agree to follow your own "majority rules" with which you justify yourself to say that I am not right and you are? When you made your only settlement proposal, I accepted it and you immediately retract what was said? Stop reporting persecution and making up offenses (by the way, you say "my" edits, so according to yourself is a claiming of property).--Baprow (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Baprow, when you say "we are all free to collaborate on Wikipedia for as long as we want and in whatever way we see fit." you are flatly wrong. There are rules here for collaborating, and people that can't accept and follow basic rules are generally blocked from editing.  It isn't a free-for-all.    For the most part, this is a content dispute, which should be handled on the article talk page, perhaps an RFC since it seems to be a single issue.  I will say that returning after a break and reverting without a summary is kind of a jerk move, however.  That said, you are both a bit overly excited over this color issue, which is another reason why holding an RFC is a good idea, to get outside input on the colors.  And remember, we do have a WP:Manual of style that must be followed as well.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I was not saying that this was a free-for-all, but that the time that is put into the contribution and what is done, if it is up to the rules, should not be belittled, as if he were a top-notch editor and I a second-rate editor. As for the discussion, I have tried to reach compromises but the matter is tremendously complicated. He accuses me of being a persecutor and dogmatic, but the truth is that he has been inflexible, he has accused me of many things, he has cynically mocked me and now he is insulting me.--Baprow (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Checking the history of President of the Valencian Government, there seems to be an evident edit war between these two editors. El Millo (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Visual comparison
The first timeline is the one that I consider better. The years go from four to four because elections have been held every four years since 1983 and so it can be seen at a glance whether a term ended abruptly or corresponds to a full legislature. The other user says that on Wikipedia the years always go from 5 to 5 or 10 to 10 and therefore it is wrong to do it that way. I do not know if it is true. In the table that he defends, there is an acting president who only lasted a week (and with the powers shared with the president of the regional parliament). In my opinion, it shouldn't be listed. He agreed to consider at a given moment that the presidents would not appear, if Olivas' term would be shortened (he was interim president before becoming official). I accepted and made the change, but he withdrew his proposal. Anyway, I asked him to put Sánchez de León with the same blue color as the rest (now she does not have an article in this wikipedia, but she could have it in the future and thus we advance work by creating an access), but he says that he does not see any visual incoherence in which some names are of one color and others of another. The size is another point of discuss (I wanted 900, now 850, and he always 800 because according him it is the correct way in this Wikipedia).--Baprow (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think ANI isn't the place for content disputes like this one. That said, the claim that needs to be substantiated by policies and guidelines. Was that the case? El Millo (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I needed visual support to explain the situation easily. Regarding the question, the other user never quoted me a specific rule. He just showed me many examples of timelines where that division was followed and said that it proved his point and that the division 4 to 4 was enterely wrong. When I showed him other timelines that were different in size, aspect and division than he defended, which denied that supposed "correct way of doing things", he ignored me and he even said that the fact I used a similar argument also proved his point.--Baprow (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it relates specifically to the content of the artcle, let's continue the discussion at the article's talk. El Millo (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I think that would be useful clarify if there are or not these rules of time division and size and colors because if he insists on this position the agreement is very difficult.--Baprow (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The underlying content dispute may be legitimate, but that's irrelevant. Looking at the editor interaction tool and Baprow's contributions, it seems rather straightforward that Baprow returned from editing and engaged in a campaign to mass revert Impru on a wide array of articles, in a rapid, bot-like manner, and without comment. I think it's patently unrealistic that Baprow was editing routinely and just so happened to have all of these interactions simultaneously, and indeed Baprow does not deny it, he only states that he had a legitimate reason for doing so. This looks like rather straightforward hounding, which is a form of harassment that is virtually never met with anything other than a block. I think the only question is whether the block should be time-limited or indef at this point. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic of discussion here is not the content dispute (though I no longer think it's truly a content dispute, since it'd be a very absurd one, tbh), but rather a behavioural pattern (most likely, one deriving from WP:OWN). As I denounced in my earlier ANI thread, Baprow has been engaging in an edit-and-vanish strategy for weeks, under which they would only reply to me with one or two comments (with always-changing arguments, so that they would never be truly pleased) for as long as I kept undoing their reverts of my edits. They have not even cared to discuss much at Talk:President of the Valencian Government, only doing so whenever I was still editing the article. I already pointed out the OWN, WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:GASLIGHT and other such concerns in the previous ANI thread, which even back then, Baprow didn't even care to deny.
 * If you look at Baprow's contribution history, their wiki activity is very limited. But, since 14 September 2020, their only activity in Wikipedia has been to react to edits that I have been making to articles (and related discussions):
 * Their initial edits on 14 September were a reaction to my own edits at President of the Valencian Government. They took a break from 14 to 21 September, which is a time in which I stopped editing that article. They returned on 21 September after I made a new edit there (this one), this time also editing several articles which I had edited earlier in the month.
 * They took another break on 22 September, lasting until 26 September, when they came back again after I made another edit at President of the Valencian Government (this one).
 * They finally took another break on 28 September, after I opened the previous ANI thread, and until yesterday, after I made a new edit at President of the Valencian Government (this one), to which they are reacting (since it's still ongoing) by editing a whole set of articles which I had edited earlier throughout the day. With no summary, no explanation, no justification on why they were doing so, despite knowing that such edits would probably be contentious and cause a reaction from me (or, precisely, seeking to provoke that) since I had already pointed out to them three weeks earlier than editing other articles to prove a point in another discussion was disruptive. They have not even cared to deny any of this. This is purely disruptive, and they know it, yet they keep doing it anyway.
 * As points out, raising this content dispute is legitimate, but only if sincere. This has not been the case here. Just check the timespan of Baprow's edits and that of mine. They are not engaging in constructive editing, but just reacting to my own edits whenever I make them. Check their arguments at Talk:President of the Valencian Government: whenever I addressed their concerns, they simply changed their arguments to other ones, and kept refusing to stop their edit warring and to revert their contested edits despite my multiple pleas for them to do so (in fact, most of the time their reaction was to simply vanish until the next time I chose to edit the article). By this point, it's fairly obvious that their only intent is to discourage me from editing President of the Valencian Government (and, possibly, other similarly-themed articles as well), because of them feeling than that article is theirs and that their edits must be preserved. The content issues raised seem to be a mere excuse to accomplish that.
 * As of currently, they are keeping on their behaviour at President of the Principality of Asturias, President of the Regional Government of Andalusia, List of presidents of the Regional Government of Galicia, President of the Community of Madrid, List of presidents of the Government of Catalonia, List of lehendakaris and President of the Government of Aragon. Note that their next reverts in those will be in violation of WP:3RR, though they will still probably not care.  Impru 20 talk 08:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not participating in any harassment campaign. I deny it a thousand times. I am convinced that those articles need to be improved and I do. I do not understand why when he acts on them it is considered good and when I do I am bullying. The other user has never wanted to reach a consensus on anything, he has insulted me and for saying "my editions" and "my timetable" he accuses me of claiming ownership of the articles, but when he says "my editions" it is perfectly normal and nothing vindictive. I have offered him various meeting points (consensus size, add the acting presidents with blue letters, do not put them ...) and he has declined all of them, even the only one he proposed in some moment. Rewarding this attitude would not seem appropriate to me. Honestly, if he tells the truth when he says that everything has to be done as he says, someone tell me and let's get it over with. But if he is only elevating his personal preferences to the status of the supreme norm, then he has no right to act the way he is doing. By the way, he is not only erasing my contributions on timelines, in the article by the presidents of Asturias he is erasing referenced information on the duration of the mandate of one of the presidents.--Baprow (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that Baprow has now broken WP:3RR on eight separate articles, continuing on their hounding behaviour despite having been noted about it even on this very same ANI thread.  Impru 20 talk 11:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reported this edit warring behaviour at ANEW as well, which I'm linking for reference.  Impru 20 talk 11:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (Note: I've witdhrawn the report at ANEW as the user has now been blocked. I'm linking the diff to that report here, again for reference).  Impru 20 talk 12:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (Baprow)
How about:
 * is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or reverting . Additionally, Baprow is subject to a WP:1RR restriction on all articles. Baprow is warned that continued issues may lead to an indefinite block.

Would that do? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be a block, probably an indeff one, as per explained above. Hounding after one-month of persistent harassing, filibustering and edit warring is bad enough; but that coupled with breaching 3RR on eight articles, insisting on their hounding even after being warned about that both in one of the pages in question and in this very same ANI thread while this discussion is ongoing is just beyond any words.
 * Also, even when this may be the most blatant case of such disruption from this user, it's not the only one: their talk page is ridden with warnings from multiple users (and some others that they have removed) throughout this year alone, and they seem to spark conflict (also involving edit warring and ownership-like behaviour) in most of the pages they come in contact with. An interaction prohibition with me is unlikely to forestall this user's reckless behaviour.  Impru 20 talk 11:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your attitude of trying to impose your way of doing things as if your word were the supreme law, your lack of dialogue, your unrepentant inflexibility, your unpleasant fondness for taking words out of context to attack with lies is truly reprehensible and worthy of a blocking.--Baprow (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indef
I've just applied an indef block for wikihounding and edit warring. Any admin is free to unblock if they are convinced Baprow "gets it", but it seems very obvious that they aren't accepting any responsibility at this point, and their behavior is clearly over the line, following an editor around just to harass them. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Archohan01
Vandalism-only account: contributions at Commons. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The user hasn't edited here however. This would need to be addressed at Commons. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Commons:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard redirects here, so this is the correct place. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Try Administrators's noticeboard/Vandalism . c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism We can't do anything here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Noclador disruptive editing and WP:REVENGE deletion
Can someone please intervene? A few days ago, I started Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, about an article created by User:Noclador. After lengthy discussions, I asked Noclador to no longer ping me at that AfD, to which they replied with two more pings. I then muted them.

And four minutes later Noclador nominated Container Cup for speedy A7. A revenge nomination if ever I saw one, and a rather unnecessary escalation of the situation. Fram (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

(merged duplicate section about same subject here)

User:Noclador has been WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion at Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 to the point of being disruptive and indicated an intention to nominate for deletion pages created by those of us who disagree with him/her: [], when warned not to do this by me: [] they indicated that they wouldn't propose pages created by us for deletion: [] but has carried through with this here: [] which is a clear case of WP:REVENGE. Mztourist (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer
This is clearly not in any way a WP:REVENGE issue, even though and  try to frame it that way to shut down a discussion at Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989.

Context: User Fram tried to mass delete military organization articles at the end of the Cold War in September. WikiProject Military History editors argued forcefully at Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle to retain these articles. Fram withdrew this mass deletion request, and then returned to it in late September at Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination) without informing the WikiProject Military History editors. Out of the more than 1,500 editors of said project none were able to comment as the creator of this article has been banned (for unrelated issues) and other editors were unaware of the discussion. After succeeding with the deletion of (admittedly poorly sourced and incomplete) Swiss Armed Forces article Fram proceeded to the Austrian Armed Forces Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989. Again not informing any of the WikiProject Military History editors. Suggestions to source the article via the Austrian Armed Forces University, Austrian Armed Forces monthly magazine, Austrian veteran associations, the Heeresgeschichtliche Museum in Vienna, etc. were shut down by Fram, who will not accept any source. He clearly doesn't not intend to accept any outcome but the mass deletion of all Cold War military organizations he tried to force through in September. Mztourist is arguing that 1989 wasn't a particular important year in the Cold War terms and if shown that it was a key year of the Cold War, he changes argument that military organizations aren't important anyway, and when shown that military organization of the Cold War are important, he reverts back to saying 1989 was important anyway.

Container Cup: as I pointed out to Mztourist in the link he provided "I am certainly not going to nominate them for deletion, as I trust your judgement on their value." and "I am also not going to nominate the articles about obscure artists and scientists Fram created. None of them seem notable, but as I believe wikipedia should include as much knowledge as possible I am not nominating articles for deletion.". And I did not nominate any of their Vietnam war or artist biography articles for deletion as I had clearly stated. I nominated the article Container Cup, which in my view fails in many ways: it's WP:RECENT, it was broadcast on a minor Belgian TV Channel, one of the sources is said TV-channel itself, no other articles links to it (not even the channel that broadcast it). In my personal view it doesn't satisfy the notability standards of wikipedia.

Conclusion: The discussion at the Austrian Armed Forces is deadlocked as Fram and Mztourist refuse to engage in a constructive, good faith discussion to improve the article. Both, Fram and Mztourist, complained that I informed other WikiProject Military History editors about the ongoing deletion discussion (Fram, Mztourist). I pinged Fram when I was refuting his arguments, which he didn't want to hear, so he muted me. Fram and Mztourist both escalated this discussion to ANI, even though in my view the failure of Container Cup to meet wikipedia notability standards could be contested by Fram on the articles deletion page. In summary: WikiProject Military History editors forcefully argued to retain these articles, Fram and Mztourist nonetheless continue their attempts to delete them, without WikiProject Military History editors being made aware of their attempts. Fram and Mztourist are impervious to good faith constructive suggestions to improve the article in question, and Fram and Mztourist escalated two unrelated deletion discussion to ANI, in an attempt to force through their viewpoint at Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989. noclador (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've declined your speedy of Container Cup. If you think that WP:RECENT applies do not list A7 as your reason for deletion.  You've been here long enough to know better.  Tide  rolls  12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Noclador's wall of text above mischaracterises the discussions at AFD and repeatedly accuses Fram and me of hiding the AFD from Milhist users which is completely incorrect and further demonstrates bad faith editing to try to defend his/her page and their actions.Mztourist (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I already explained this in the other discussion where Noclador raised this, but not only is such notification not required, but the deletions (both Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle and Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989) were listed in three milhist project subpages dedicated to listing AfDs (for the Swiss one here, here, and here), after I had announed in the closure of the earlier AfD that "I will as suggested renominate individual articles instead". I can't really help it if interested editors don't have the articles on their watchlist, and don't have the AfD alerts on their watchlist.

Noclador claims "This is clearly not in any way a WP:REVENGE issue", and then goes on to state that after having withdrawn the threat to nominate my articles on artists and so on for deletion, they found another type of article in my contributions which they could nominate without going back on their promise. How this isn't a case of looking for revenge is not clear. Perhaps their own attempt to do "a malintent and spurious nomination", as they described the AfD. Note that looking at Google News would give a load of new reliable sources about the Container Cup in Flemish newspapers and reliable websites, as a new (Student) version of it was held. So even the WP:RECENT claim doesn't hold water.

Finally, I invite everyone here to go to that AfD and form their own opinion of the sources, the arguments, the relevance of arguments, and so on. Fram (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I did just that. Being independent of any knowledge of military structure but an able reader (that's an opinion) who can use common sense while following policy here at wikipedia, I see why the nominator brought this article up for deletion. There are NO in-line sources of any kind. I have managed to read through the AfD and understand the arguments. Without sources the AfD is no contest. Likewise, independent reading of the statements above ARE a mis-characterization of the discussion as indicated by . Go read it yourself. And before anyone jumps on me, Mztourist and I have had debates, lively and sometimes heated, so don't just assume I side with anyone. Ask them if you doubt it. In this case I agree with Fram and Mztourist. Add independent (not directly linked to the subject) reliable (at least some knowledge of the subject) sources that can be verified (anyone can access it; with other sources that can possibly confirm) and you may have a case to keep. No sources means an automatic delete. I think that's pretty clear. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I and other editors have offered a list of possible references, all of which were rejected by . For military articles of all types we have been using the military's themselves as references. I.e. the US Army organization is referenced to the US Army website. British Army, French Army, Spanish Army, Belgian Army, Dutch Army, Polish Army, Greek Air Force, US Air Force, Dutch Air Force, Italian Navy, US Navy, US Marine Corps, Canadian Armed Forces, etc, etc, are all referenced primarily by their websites, magazines, publications and press communiques. If Fram had accepted that for military organizations we have to reference back to the military's own publication, we could have by now referenced the article. Fram outright refuses to even consider this offer. As for - his intransigence that 1989 was in no way a relevant year in the history of the Cold War, and that historic military organizations are per se irrelevant makes any discussion futile. If either of them would be willing to cooperate and collaborate referencing and improving the article could be achieved. As it is now, any work on the article is moot as the very basis for it and all possible detailed sources are reject. If you have a suggestion how exit from this impasse, please I would be interested in such a suggestion. noclador (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Easy answer? Add in-line sources to the article. I am a warrior when it comes to articles on Indigenous people and Women related topics but even I can't fight for those articles when there are no independent verifiable in-line sources. This article has nothing. You can't wait for other editor's, even those who nominate for the AfD, to add references and sources. You add and then have them and others review it. You may even get some to change their mind if the sources are good enough. But we can't get anything from nothing. I am sure that's in a policy somewhere or it should be. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Noclador and Tsistunagiska, the article and AfD should be discussed at the AfD. This report is about Noclador's refusal to honour a simple request to stop pinging me in that discussion, and his subsequent revenge nomination for speedy deletion of an article I created (a speedy which was swiftly deleted rejected). I'ld like to just highlight one aspect of Nocladors reply here: "If Fram had accepted that for military organizations we have to reference back to the military's own publication, we could have by now referenced the article. Fram outright refuses to even consider this offer." For all articles, notability (which this AfD is about) has to be demonstrated from independent sources. So yes, I refuse to discard this basic rule for this article. I have not stopped anyone from adding references to the article or otherwise improving the article, not in words and not in actions; but if the sources that are offered at the AfD or added to the article are not independent, reliable, in-depth, published, and actually about the subject of the article, then yes, they won't change my opinion that the article should be deleted. How this justifies your actions is not clear though. Fram (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "swiftly declined." It's hard to avoid the impression that this was a bad faith nomination, given that A7 explicitly does not apply to TV programmes.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, corrected. Fram (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This complaint is about 's disruptive editing and WP:REVENGE deletion, however he/she is Wikilawyering to try to make it about page sourcing to try to avoid sanctions. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Experiencing disruptive editing, and possible witch hunt by user:Onetwothreeip
Along with some other editors, recently put me and several other editors under a Sockpuppet investigation here. The process was absolutely chilling, though it made me realise I needed to do a better job of letting editors know that I have a semi-regular wiki meetup. But now I am beginning to wonder if it's part of this particular editor's pattern to both delete contributions that I and others have made and to pressure editors to accept those deletions. I have experienced this editor as increasingly abrasive, disruptive and antagonistic. I have also felt pressured to undo my anonymity - which I'm trying to protect as I work in the Australian Parliament, a conflict I declared some months ago declared here and declared here and declared here

Let me offer some context. 1. I connected with this editor after I proposed some changes to to page. I thought it was good manners to ping him and other editors as they had been involved on the article before. I am open about my connection in the talk page discussion, as I should be. But I experienced being pushed to disclose who my immediate boss is here which, of course would all but reveal my identity (some of these MPs only have a couple of staff). I felt quite worried by this, but decided to hold my boundary and keep to the processes that wiki offers.

2. Soon after, I noticed that this editor was deleting large amounts of the articles where I had declared by connection such as here - with the reason given that quotes are not useful and sometimes without a reason being given at all. On another article, large cuts were made because the content was considered subjective, though it was all given balance with extensive citations. On one article about 150kb of deletions were made The reasons given are often dismissive, so this 30kb cut was made because "there's not much that's salvageable." Another cut - noting that this is an article about about a SAS officer turned MP - had all the content about the subject's service with the SAS completely removed.

3. These were bold edits being made, certainly, and, at first, I decided to revert then push to make improvements as you can see here. But then I thought I would try to simply move to a new section of the talk page - I alerted all the people I could see had been interested in the article and some other editors I know from a meetup who are interested in the subject too. At first the interactions went pretty well. Then things got bogged down, mostly around the area of notability. I was being told that various images and facts and quotes weren't notable. It took me a week to discover - from another editor - that the subject has to be notable. A given photograph or fact doesn't have to be notable. That's when I sensed that things weren't quite right. This deletionist didn't actually know the policies so well at all. It was just about deleting content. The language from the deletionist editor began to change, saying to someone else "this is a lie". It got aggressive. Once other editors began asserting the clearer understanding of the policies, and we were moving towards a consensus, then the deletionist editor seemed to excuse themselves from the discussion - to hit the nuclear button.

4. A fortnight ago the deletionist editor instigated an SPI investigation against me and other editors. This case appears to have been closed after many hours of work by admins. As one admin noted that these SPI cases can be used to drive off other editors, particularly those who are not in the majority on these pages, namely women. It's been from that point that I've become worried that's what's really going on here. An editor is not seeing the content they would prefer and they are driving off junior editors - and using mass deletions and an SPI investigation to get their way.

5. Sensing a lull, I took a moment to thank some admins for their time today on my talk page and that's when I noticed that user:Onetwothreeip is simply an agressive, disrespectful editor, operating in that unsafe area of harassment. Seconds after I posted my thanks on my talk page, I got a message from this editor saying "the investigation isn't over" - never mind that admins had said it was closed. I was having my own talk page patrolled and it feels a lot like stalking. When I asked that editor to please be respectful and just not interact with me, certainly not on my own talk page, for a while — this editor posted another aggressive message.

When you ask someone to leave you alone, give you some space, and they come back five minutes later, there's something badly wrong. I am not asking for any kind of bans, but I would like I would like some support from admins on handling this matter. I am very happy to have admins do their work, even if I'm the one under the magnifying glass. I would then simply like to go back to improving articles, taking on constructive feedback, making suggestions, understand policies better. I have tried to disclose my interests and connections as best as I can (which I've done voluntarily). I don't think I deserve to get extra harassment because I've tried to do the right thing. And I really think we need to draw a line at what feels like talk page stalking.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is a disappointing overreaction and not the right forum for this. I will be as brief as possible to respond to these points, but if The Little Platoon is here for the legitimate purpose of improving the encyclopaedia then I would welcome them to continue contributing. They have gone between being friendly and unfriendly towards me before.
 * The sockpuppet investigation found what I had suspected, that multiple editors were engaging in off-wiki collaboration to influence certain potentially contentious articles, without making this known to other editors. I agree with assuming that this was done in good faith, even though they have a self-declared connection to the subjects of the articles. If the sockpuppet investigation process was actually unsettling for anybody, then that is certainly unfortunate, but this is certainly a necessary function of this project. I would not want even those who are most blatantly here to disrupt Wikipedia to feel that we are out to publicise them. To be clear about what they are referring to as a meet-up, it's a group of people who know each other off-wiki editing on the same articles.
 * I've certainly asked, as others have, for further information about their self-purported conflict of interest. I've never had any desire to know who their "immediate boss" is. Saying that one works in the Australian Parliament is just not saying much at all. It's clear now by their implications that they work for a member of parliament, but they could just as well have worked for the parliament itself.
 * This editor clearly disagrees with their bold additions of content being reverted. That's understandable, although I certainly had not and would not revert everything they have added. That's purely an editorial dispute though, and not something that relates to conduct. It would have been much easier to quickly revert the articles to versions before their edits, but I took the time to remove only the objectionable content to preserve anything appropriate they added that could remain in the article. I think "notability" and "due weight" are concepts that have been mixed up here.
 * As I have told The Little Platoon before, the investigation I opened was split into two, and one of those has closed. The conclusion was that there were multiple people who know each other outside of Wikipedia editing together on certain articles, and to assume good faith.
 * For the first time, I today left a message on their talk page. It is true that I had their user page in my watchlist, as I have for several others, and thirty editors have my user page on their watchlist. I do not appreciate being accused of harassment and I find that quite objectionable to describe these interactions in that way, and I hope The Little Platoon reflects on that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain this to me? I read this report and the SPI and I'm thoroughly confused. This is what I understand happened, please correct me where I've got it wrong:
 * There is a group of (4-7?) editors who are editing Austrialian politics articles
 * At least one of them has admitted/confirmed that they work in the Australian parliament and has declared COI
 * The group of editors have admitted to off-wiki coordination of their editing on Australian politics articles
 * At least some of the editors weren't even editors before they were recruited to join this group
 * A CheckUser has confirmed 4 of the accounts, the other 3 are "additional information needed"
 * Nobody is sanctioned, the SPI is closed without action
 * Do I have that right? #6 is really blowing my mind. What am I missing? I understand about Wiki-meetups, but an employee of an MP recruiting editors to edit articles with which they have a COI seems like... well, sanctionable? Lev!vich 19:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And so the witch hunt continues.The Little Platoon (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , do I have it wrong or is what I wrote correct? For example, you have a declared COI for the article Tim Smith (Australian politician), and yet the history shows you have been repeatedly reverting/reinstating content at that article. How can raising these concerns be a "witch hunt"? Lev!vich 20:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's correct, although the investigation for the four that are confirmed are closed, and the investigation for the other three is still open. Most if not all of these editors were not editors until this year. I was certainly surprised to see that the process did not find this to be particularly alarming, but maybe SPI is not the right place to report off-wiki coordination? I reported it there because I wasn't sure if it was sockpuppeting or a coordinated group of people, but I figured that the consequences would be similar. Is a place like ANI where coordinating is better handled? I was also surprised that The Little Platoon brought the issue here, as it only further publicises the off-wiki coordination. There is also very clearly a lack of understanding about the responsibilities of editors with a conflict of interest, other than to disclose it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know next to nothing about SPI and I don't doubt Amanda and GN's judgment there, but like you I was also surprised to read this report here. Declaring COIs in accordance with policy is great, but then off-wiki recruiting of friends who join an RFC (like Talk:Andrew Hastie (politician)) seems obviously problematic. Now that this is here, I'm looking forward to reading what others think. Lev!vich 21:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your question was to me? You're correct in saying there's a meetup of editors, we help each other write on about a dozen different topics, from fashion to welsh preachers. I have a particular interest in Australian politics. I've helped others with their articles. A few of them have helped me improve articles that I have worked on previously. We started the group to get better at doing wiki on all the topics we're interested in. You're also correct to say that I went to the COI and disclosed my interest many months ago. I felt like that was the right thing to do, even though I don't feel it's okay to fully break anonymity. You're not quite right to say the group formed to edit on Australian politics, if you want to look at all the articles people have worked on, you can see the interests are eclectic. And the wider wiki community was fine with that until we got to politics. Hence the heat. And, in my experience, what seems to be harrasment-like behaviours from others. It's been really unpleasant. The recruitment thing is off. I'm not a member of any party. It's people interested in learning and supporting each other as writers in this format and putting good facts out there on wiki. So, you're half right on your point 1, absolutely right on point 2, mostly wrong on point 3, sorta right sorta wrong on point 4 (I don't think it's unusual to to help people who don't have a wiki account to create one), and totally correct on points 5 and 6. I note that you're having a good sniff around my previous edits - which feels a lot like "an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred." That is a witch hunt. I don't expect to change your mind. I am here to ask the support of admins from what I experience as uncivil behaviour.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my intention to make anyone feel harassed or the subject of a witch hunt. You posted this report here, and as a result, you can expect that editors will look at your recent edits, as well as those of 123IP, and read the SPI and referenced article talk pages, and look at the edits of the editors participating there. What you're calling "sniff around my previous edits" and "harassment", I call "investigating the report". I'm glad you're editing here and recruiting others to do so, and I'm glad you've been forthright about declaring COIs. My concerns are (1) what looks to me like edit warring at Tim Smith (Australian politician) and (2) what looks to me like canvassing at Andrew Hastie (politician). Lev!vich 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm just a bit burnt by all this. The reason I'm copping all this hostility is because I pinged this hostile user in the first place, as someone who had edited a particular page in the past as someone who had edited a particular page in the past. I invited everyone I could see who might be interested on the Hastie edit too. I invited everyone I could see who might be interested on the Hastie edit too. I'm trying to do the right thing here. Wiki actually has it as a recommendation to let past editors of articles and those who are interested know. That's what I've done. And I've declared my personal interest. I wasn't made to do it. I wasn't found out. I declared it. But the pitchforks and torch fires bear down all the same.The Little Platoon (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with pinging editors who have edited the article; but -- again, correct me if I'm mistaken -- four of the editors you pinged are using the same computer you are using. Lev!vich 22:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost right. The SPI found that four other editors had shared an IP at points, but not with me. I know some of them share some space. And that's where I actually do feel like a bit of a dummy. There's advice on the article about wiki meetups about telling the community if you're doing a meet up and sharing an IP and I hadn't actually bothered to read up on that. So lesson learnt. But the bit where I'm kicking myself is that these younger editors, who have great interest, but no real connection to politics — they all have different interests — have all had a bloody fright and now seem entirely disinclined to make further contributions. And I hate to say it but I fear that was the intention all along. I don't think the seasoned editors on pages like this have any idea how intimidating and upsetting a formal investigation can be, with threats of immediate blocking, all out of the blue, not a note of warning or gentle suggestion. Just elaborate accusations of which William Stroughton would be proud. I think it's not at all okay. The Little Platoon (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What had alerted me to something unusual happening was that most of the accounts they had notified into that discussion had not edited that article before. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be all pitchforks and torches, but that just seems like an important distinction. Lev!vich 22:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not usual at all to organise people who you know off-wiki to form a consensus on an article talk page. "The wider wiki community" was simply not aware of this until now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Tell Abyad quotes
At Tell Abyad there is a discussion going on since May 2020, and we have a problem. An Editor Ibn Amr wants to have included two quotes in the Tell Abyad article:

Quote 1: "The Kurds formally renamed Tal Abyad with a Kurdish name, "Gire Spi", and proclaim its new identity in signs throughout the town — written in the Latin script used by Turkish Kurds but not readily understood by Syrian Kurds or Arabs. They have also unilaterally detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and made it a part of their newly formed autonomous enclave, carved from areas traditionally inhabited by Kurds but steadily encroaching also on territories that were historically Arab."

1. The Kurds, never "formally" renamed Tell Abyad into Gire Spi as Tell Abyad was also mentioned as Tell Abyad at the towns entrance for the time that the "Kurds"[ https://en.zamanalwsl.net/news/article/16665/ governed the town] and also afterwards like on the 2nd January 2020.

2. The use of Latin and Arab script was and and is widely known in Syria (commonsense, Latin and arab script are literally written on I guess if not all, sure most major traffic signs in Syria, be it terrestrial or aerial, in Damascus or Aleppo, Idlib or Qamishli etc.) before the "Kurds" governed Tell Abyad and also after.

3. That the Kurds "unilaterally" detached a town formerly governed by ISIL (within a "Raqqa Wilaya") from the "existing!" Raqqa Governorate of Assadist Syria is just nonsense. Assad had no control over the Raqqa Governorate at the time (2015). The Raqqa Governorate/Wilaya was majorly controlled by ISIL at the time. ISIL controlled Raqqa only fell to the Syrian Democratic Forces (Kurds/Arabs etc.) in October 2017. Sorry, but Tell Abyad was a major supply route for ISIS (as stated in the article) and was actually a part of the Raqqa Wilaya of ISIS at the time of its capture. It can't be unilaterally detached from an existing Syrian province, there would be necessary a cooperation between the YPG/SDF and ISIS which is utter nonsense.

Quote 2:

In administrative terms, Tal Abyad district no longer belongs to the Syrian government province of Raqqa, but to the Kurdish canton of Kobane. Although the population is predominantly Arab, there is no civil council to represent them as in Manbij, Deir al-Zour, Raqqa, and other Arab-majority locales liberated by Kurdish forces. Instead, the YPG’s goal is to fully integrate Tal Abyad into Kurdish territory, which the group still envisions as an autonomous belt along most of the northern border.

1. There was a Canton of Tell Abyad all the time from 2015 until 2019. And there was also an Arab majority in the council governing the town. 2. I'd also like to mention that the relevance of the quote by the author Fabrice Balanche is in fair dispute as the editor who wants to keep the quote of Fabrice Balanche called him an opinion in Kurds in Syria and at Tell Abyad he calls him an "expert". An "expert" who ignores and/or denies administrative entities like a canton/province and a civil council is not an expert. I advocate for the removal of the quotes and Ibn Amr wants to keep the quotes. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The whole (since May) ongoing discussion you can see here.
 * The recent since 3 September ongoing discussion you can see from :here onwards.
 * Ibn Amr mainly has the :argument sourced. Since May 2020, until today.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Strive for consensus on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, there are various forms of dispute resolution available for your use. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have tried numerous locations like the NPOV noticeboard where Slatersteven said we dont have to apply with an essay, WP:UNDUE is no essay it is a policy of Wikipedia. I am tired of not getting any answer at the talk page and then getting blocked for having done all correctly.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We tried the DNR, the 3RR noticeboard we tried several times. I want a solution and here I come to the admins.
 * I see that when you tried the DRN, a moderator, User:Nightenbelle worked very hard to establish compromise, and then recommended either finding a WikiProject that could offer a volunteer moderator, or an RFC. In Wikipedia, an RFC is the closest thing that there is to a solution to a content dispute.  You may have been trying some of the wrong ways to resolve your dispute, such as the 3RR noticeboard, which implies that you were trying to resolve the dispute by edit-warring.  You may have noticed that that doesn't work.  Is there a reason that you haven't tried RFC?  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to have been an RFC (subsection at bottom of discussion) a few months ago at WP:NPOVN, though it may have been malformed and no one had stepped in to resolve the dispute. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  06:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tenriyuuu is correct. I also asked the RFC to be reactivated, (to no avail) and EdJohnston wrote on the 11th July they would close an RfC if needed. We have tried many things.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As the DRN mediator, I just want to say- the problem here is less a content issue than a political issue. Those involved are pushing their political views onto this page and being subtlety petty towards the others- and wp tends to tolerate the subtly petty. However- the argument is keeping this article from being edited npov. I have no idea what the neutral perspective is on this article- but I am familiar with this argument in particular. Honestly- I think both sides need to walk away from this article for a couple years and find something new to work on. But.... that’s just my two cents after trying to find a solution and realizing y’all are more interested in grandstanding than improving Wikipedia. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the DRN mediator. User:Nightenbelle was.  I concur with her judgment that this is a political issue rather than a content issue, which is why DRN did not work.  This is the sort of dispute that Syrian Civil War Community General Sanctions were authorized for.  I don't have a specific recommendation, but I think that it should involve imposing some sort of ceasefire within the context of Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If only we could impose ceasefires in a wider context. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If an admin would see how the parties take part in the discussions at the talk page and the case dispute might get much more resolvable. Ibn Amr mostly doesn't answer on topic (if at all), refused to answer multiple times (I quickly counted 7 explicitly at Ibn Amr directed questions by Konli which he refused to answer, and there are other questions and points by me as well to which he refuses to answer) and mainly edit wars.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

IP with unhelpful opinions
This IP was previously blocked for a year and is back to share more ... opinions.


 * "Yes, all Germans were Nazis. Get over it. This is accepted consensus by historians. All Germans knew about, and aided the Holocaust."
 * "White Nationalist Proud Boys are using this page as a tool to defend against claims of the Proud Boys being Nazis. This is obviously false."
 * "Anyone who disagrees with me will be taken to tribunal for racism and bigotry. This is obviously a racist and bigoted page."
 * "this entire article should be deleted it is Islamophobic and Xenophobic. It's not mentioned anywhere that the professor provoked the Muslim in question. Free speech is not freedom from consequences."

They seem to be both pro- and anti- racism. Please note the lack of actual contributions. After several blocks, I don't think more warnings are going to be the solution. Natureium (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Taken care of. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Garo people
Following a user block by, persistent disruption via block evasion. Addition of non notable people and/or removal of notables, out of apparent spite. Asking that all sock/meat puppets be blocked and/or page be locked. The page has plenty of underlying problems, and I've tagged it for possible copyright violations. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

V. Gordon Childe
Some help here, please. JNW (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

New account, Lin Jinhai with suspicious non-referenced BLP additions in mass quantities

 * Contributions: Lin_Jinhai

This user seems to add Alma maters of dozens of Chinese BLPs without any reference to indicate their validity. Account is only a few days old. I thought this was very strange, and wanted to bring into the attention of those who have been around here longer to look into this. , are you using some database of sorts to get this information? Transcendental (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply back User Transcendental: I'm adding these alma maters based on what is said and referenced in the articles themselves. For example, if it says Joe has went to (Toronto University), then I add he went to Toronto university in the alma mater section. I'm adding these based on what the article says, no suspicious motives here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lin Jinhai (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. The articles do state that the individual went to these universities. I didn't notice at first due to the fact that some of these BLPs appear to not reference the education history. Clearly you are doing this in good faith. My apologies for the confusion, Transcendental (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussion of "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" (emphasis reproduced from above). Thus, this report seems inappropriate. What I do think is suspicious is a user who claims to be new, has fewer than 500 mainspace edits since registering on 25 September (99% reverts), and yet seems to be fully familiar with Wikipedia policies, procedures and jargon. 109.144.28.106 (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Link to a person in website?
Here is the diff. 103.18.245.111 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you asking for here? Please explain what you want to accomplish and why this requires admin intervention. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In that edit an editor has been linked to a possible person on an external website. Does Wikipedia allow this? It seems unethical. 103.18.245.111 (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that OPs concern might be that User:Pahlevun's comment is OUTING the reported user. I don't think they are, Pahlevun is just pointing out the similarity between a username and and a subject to highlight a possible COI. --Paul &#10092;talk&#10093; 15:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun is posting personal information of a person (workplace, job title, photograph, address). That is more than pointing out similarities between usernames. The OUTING policy indicates that posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. 103.18.245.111 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

South Africa rangeblock - political stuff for a different country
I'm asking for a rangeblock to stop some strange political disruption coming from South Africa but targeting the USA. Probably a proxy. There's also music article edit warring, which first got my notice. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange indeed - I think there are a few things coming from it. There was some weird disruption of an election page coming from the narrower range but it seems to have stopped a few days ago, and then recently there's been contributions from a wider part of the range that are mostly unhelpful promotional edits to music articles, but one random edit to Susan Collins. Given the extreme shortage of anything actually useful coming from the range recently, I've anonblocked the /19 for two weeks. ~  mazca  talk 11:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange indeed - I think there are a few things coming from it. There was some weird disruption of an election page coming from the narrower range but it seems to have stopped a few days ago, and then recently there's been contributions from a wider part of the range that are mostly unhelpful promotional edits to music articles, but one random edit to Susan Collins. Given the extreme shortage of anything actually useful coming from the range recently, I've anonblocked the /19 for two weeks. ~  mazca  talk 11:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by S11141827


This user is a typical example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Keeps making unsourced, disruptive, poorly written, and sometimes promotional edits, falsely marking them as minor. Does not communicate at all and ignores all explanations and warnings (about unsourced edits, inappropriate capitalization, disruptive editing and marking major edits as minor), including three final, level-4 warnings. Other editors keep reverting the edits.

One important, but lesser known fact: Marking major edits as minor is not only a breach of wikietiquette, as WP:MINOR explains. When done repeatedly and knowingly (and after receiving multiple warnings about it, it is definitely a deliberate choice), it is also a form of vandalism, as WP:VANDAL explicitly says.

I can see only one solution—blocking the user from editing.—J. M. (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, deliberate insertion of factual errors and sockpuppetry by
The user in question has been edit warring on Thiruvananthapuram despite having been warned not to do so and has been logging out to make problematic reverts which counts as sockpuppetry.

Deliberate insertion of factual errors diffs:   

Sockpuppetry diff: 

Edit warring diffs:    

Content removal diff: This kind of removal of content looks like vandalism. A lot of content have been removed along with maintenance, cleanup and copyedit work. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Tagging and  since they have reverted this user's edits. <span style="font family:Lobster;text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px mediumturquoise, -4px -4px 20px darkorchid"> Pro lix 💬 15:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thiruvananthapuram semi-protected for 1 week.  and  blocked as sock or meat puppets.  Mybuddylive was edit warring to restore edits by Gaya3menon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced genres
I've posted 4 warnings in succession on their talk page as well as a personal plea requesting they source their (genre) edits but despite all that, Ilovelife68 68 has ignored my requests and continues without any acknowledgement or engagement of these concerns. Their repeated additions of unsourced genres is extremely disruptive and examples can be seen here, here, here, here and here. There are more examples on their contributions page if needed. I'd appreciate an admin stepping in and assisting please.  Rob van  vee  05:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just from today, I'm seeing multiple unsourced genre changes, as well as genre-changing edits that were accompanied by a source which, on inspection, did not support the change. I've applied a partial block from article space to give them a chance to respond to these issues, and to try using the talk page to propose/discuss changes. Best Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks GS.  Rob van  vee  11:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Spam links to vietnamese site
A number of IPs are repeatedly adding bogus "reference" links to nhanlucnhatban.com; e.g. Special:Contributions/2001:EE0:48CF:5180:E0A3:977:8F86:BDF3. The site is in Vietnamese, and while it looks as though it might be vaguely relevant, it is of no help to WP:en. Formerly all the "references" included the capital name "NHANLUCNHATBAN", which a WP search would find. Later edits involved removing this, perhaps just to make it harder. Could this site be blacklisted for references? And perhaps an IP block? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest you list at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive IP
Hi! This IP 2409:4072:613:6973:17a4:67e7:d34a:773d is making disruptive edits on Sheela Rajkumar page. This user also use foul language on edit summary. Please block this IP.--Universalrahu (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a content dispute. Admin don't decide content disputes.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User Vamlos continue to act in wikipedia
(1) He's been following me around and constantly attacking me.

(2) He is Single-purpose doll who created an ID to interrupt the debate.

(3) He is constantly obsessed with my personal information. [] He confessed that he was another illegal IP user(70.77.154.228). He's attacking me using an external site. []

(4) He is constantly obsessed with Korea, which is not related to the debate. He is constantly attacking not only me but also certain countries.

(5) He is trying to attach or preserve false data all over. He plastered a lot of false information not only in documents but also in talk page. Many users have warned him, but he is ignoring it. []

He should be deported. Bablos939 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When you report another user you must notify them on their talk page, as per policy. I have done so for you this time. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  16:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * All of these are false accusations. I never confessed I was 70.77.154.228, this is another typical accusation. Bablos939 have been previously blocked for 1 week for removing the work of other users and not going to talk page, he had multiple warning of disruptive editing. He was also warned of misusing the ISP by ramdonly accusing anyone that reverts his edits or opposes his opinion in talk pages and wikipedia edits. Vamlos (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen both of these editors before, and have not been impressed with what I've seen. This is not an official proposal, but I think that a two-way IBAN and/or TBAN for both on the topic of race might be appropriate here. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we really think this edit by Bablos939 is acceptible? Edit summary calls other users defective and they reinstate an edit with a rather perjorative and racist term. Most of their edits are skirting the line as well. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks to be a pointy edit. Vamlos and Bablos939 edit warred over that passage, which has been in the article for a while, with Bablos939 most recently reverting their own removal. I dug through the history of the article back to 2017 and that bit of text has been there at least since then. The edit summary isn't great, nor is the edit warring, but it's not really correct to attribute the passage to them. Blackmane (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some misunderstanding

I'm not perfect and immature.but I've been suffering from sock dolls for a long time. I don`t have power compared to my Wikipedia career. (1) I discuss to erase wrong and false data about intermarrige. (2) Sock doll is attacking me. (3) He is eventually blocked. (4) Then the IP address appears and attacking me. (5) IP is eventually blocked. (6) Single-purpose ID reappears.......... (Endless loop..................) He's taking advantage of the fact that I can not SCI investigation often. I was unfriendly to him because he was a sock doll. But I didn't do any other attacks. On the other hand, he attacks my personal information and defame certain countries. I need you to look at the previous contributions. Everything is real... 'Contribution preservation of defective users' My comment was not mature. I'm sorry. But to avoid war and accuse him, I wrote it. I think it was necessary to preserve the contents. please understand me.Bablos939 (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I want remove a misunderstanding. My purpose is simply to eliminate the wrong data of blocked users.My career is short, but I've suffered too much. I have never abused my editorial authority. Whenever I have a debate, sock dolls are constantly made and attacking me. His purpose is to maintain data that is not true, and he's disrupting the talk page. Please check the previous records. Other users doubt him, too.[] I was unfriendly to him because he was a sock doll. But I didn't do any other attacks. On the other hand, he attacks my personal information and defame certain countries. He is making a noise in order to achieve his purpose.Bablos939 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to say that Bablos939 has a history of removing the work of many editors. Everytime he suspect someone is a sock he would remove their work even if it means removing the work of many other editors that contributed which he did plenty of times, I can provide evidence. He was warned multiple times for disruptive editing and got blocked before but he still had not changed his atittude towards wikipedia. He would falsely accuse many editors as sock simply because they reverted his edit. Despite sockpuppet investigation showed the results, he doesn't accept it. He harrassed many editors by spamming the same message. He was also blocked from using the ISP again for randomlu accusing editors without evidence.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmartin969
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mz7
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yamla
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_B123
 * Same repteaded false accusations on the admin board but was dimissed in the end.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=963035782 Vamlos (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your supposed to comment below my comment not above mine. You again wrongfully accuse me of being a sock or sock doll. You had all your chances in ISP but quite simply you never offer evidence everytime you accuse. You always say you comments are not mature, how many times are you going to say that your immature and don't know wikipedia rules. This is the same repeated excuses that can be seen in Bablos939 past history edits (please check the links of Dmartin69 and Mz7, he uses the sam excuses everytime that he is immature). I have not been blocked for disruptive edit.  The other users could be you, you are still under sockpuppet investigation bablos939, the case is still open.Vamlos (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To all the admins/editors in this page. Recently a sockpuppet investigation on Bablos939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bablos939
 * A clerk concluded "I think there is enough evidence to prove that the two IPs listed are Bablos " ( the two IP were a single edit purpose account to give Bablos939 fake support ). Although no actions were taken because it's been a month ago.
 * However he recently again just started accusing other users randomly despite the IP account from the sockpuppet investigation shows it being related to Bablos939. Shouldn't Bablos939 be stopped for his wrongdoings and breaking wikipedia rules because I don't understand why he still just randomly accuses a ramdon user as being that account when the sockpuppet investigation had detertimed with enough evidence that the IP 220.117.225.165 linked to Bablos939. But yet Bablos939 ramdomly accuses a wiki user as being that IP number (that relates to him (please check here)   Is he not breaking wikipedia rules for making these same wrong and repeated accusations ? He accuses accusing people of being socks and now accusing others of being the sock IP numbers when the evidence is directed to Bablos939 Vamlos (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI: 16:47, 20 October 2020 RoySmith talk contribs changed block settings for Bablos939 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bablos939). Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

New user adding copyright violations, well, everywhere


I've reverted copied content from a half dozen articles--pretty much everything they've contributed looks suspect. A lot of rev/deletion may be necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will look after this. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323
Could an uninvolved admin please take a glance at Special:Contribs/Guitarguy2323 and decide if action should be taken? I see they've been warned and blocked for previous behavior along the lines of what they've just exhibited at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory:,. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for two weeks per my earlier warning to them. This is a regular admin action, not an AE action, and doesn't preclude topic bans or other forms of AE action.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:NOTHERE may be applicable, see User_talk:Guitarguy2323. It appears their only purpose is to either scream about how they believe Wikipedia is "bought by" the Biden campaign, or add stuff like this:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MSNBC&diff=prev&oldid=965394884
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=981341635
 * I provided a few other links to GorillaWarfare, obviously this is up to the admins. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Their battleground approach to editing and talkpage conduct is extensive. My term was set by their previous block length and their attempt to skirt my warning by making their most recent talkpage gripes non-specific. Taking only the recent edits, it's not indef-worthy, but their editing history as a whole may be.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to apply one right now, but an ARBAP2 topic ban would not be inappropriate for this user. We shall see what happens once their block expires. ST47 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that blocks expiring early Nov should be the default for this, for a while. Maybe midnight of Nov 7? I know it's just kicking the can down the road and invites a massive explosion when the count is in, but the immediate problem is a mix of good faith boosters and frankly bad faith messaging prior to Nov 3, and Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect breaking news, we are supposed to be more analytical. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably - expiration before 11/3 and the ensuing 48 hours is probably going to prove too great a temptation to continue to misbehave. I think I'll extend it a little to cover the 3rd and a couple more days.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To judge by their talk page responses it won't do much good.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuitarguy2323&type=revision&diff=984090396&oldid=984081790
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guitarguy2323&diff=next&oldid=984090396
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guitarguy2323&diff=next&oldid=984090908 "GorillaWarfare Thanks for proving me correct :) you have unverified bs about Trump published as facts. Have a political hit job on FNC page but anything that is proven true is not allowed. Judging by your talk page it has also proven me correct.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)"
 * Don't know if it matters since they are blocked but it's not a good look. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also there may be another one or it may be their alternative account or someone else's alternative account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TruthWarrior5940 aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TruthWarrior2020, who was warned for using multiple accounts in March 2019. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Their latest response to the block shows they are not learning anything, so it appears that a topic ban is the only way (short of an indef ban) to protect the encyclopedia. -- Valjean (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:Francis Schonken
This is just about the most ridiculous dispute I have come across in a long while on Wikipedia. It started with this edit by. Removal was silly, I felt, but fair enough, there was no source for the famous theme of The Sicilian Clan by Ennio Morricone being an arrangement of Bach's BWV 543. It's obvious from a listen, so cn tag would have been better, but whatever. I provided a source with.

Then the silly stuff begings. FS claimed that the source didn't verify the claim. I assumed good faith, restored the source, telling them how to find the mention (search "BWV 543"). They again claimed this failed verification.

I then went to their talk page, leaving them the full quote, which I willl reproduce here


 * Go here. Search for "BWV 543". Find
 * The influence of "serious" classical music is present throughout Ennio Morricone's musical output, and the composer often amused himself with these serious references, often citing and arranging works from the classical repertoire in his film scores: for example Wagner's famous Ride of the Valkyries for the theme of the "Wilde Horde" from My Name is Nobody (1973), and Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan (1969).


 * Emphasis mine.

Which was promptly reverted, which is fine. They then started a talk page discussion where they are making mind-boggling claims that Bach's BWV 543 referred to by France Musique is not what everyone understands by BWV 543 because the word "Fugue" does not appear in the FM article, and that it is original research to say that BWV 543 is BWV 543. Thing are getting silly, so I left a message at WikiProject Classical music, with a neutral summary of the issue, which they then reverted as canvassing.

And this is where I'm having enough of this nonsense, because AGF is not a suicide pact. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , what? The BWV number is unique. There's only one BWV543. The WikiProject message is not canvassing. This is, indeed, bloody silly. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now tagged with an OR tag!, courtesy of FS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've come across some edits made at List of compositions by Franz Schubert where it appears Francis Schonken has created articles in order to make the article appear smaller in size than it really is, by splitting the article into smaller articles and using templates to put them back together in the main article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The idiocy continues at Arrangement. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed a personal attack. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's no PA. Restored. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is hardly a personal attack. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a mild one. It's why I only removed it, to try and prevent this thread from spiraling in unhelpful directions, and didn't say anything to you directly about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally we don't treat uncivil descriptors of someone's actions ("what you're doing is is idiotic") as being the same thing as a personal attack ("you are an idiot"). While I sympathize with trying to enforce civility, I think you're understating the significance of deleting a portion of someone's comment and replacing it with a boilerplate rpa template, which only serves as scathing "scarlet letter" that brands you as having committed a great behavioral wrongdoing. Especially if you're not even involved in attempting to mitigate the incident, and are just popping in to redact someone's comment, which at best is what you describe as a "minor personal attack", and then move on, and then when questioned, deign to suggest that such a drastic action was you being "lenient" and that the editor should be thankful that you didn't do anything more. Either take up the situation or don't, but dropping by just to enact some cherrypicking civility enforcement probably derails an AN/I complaint far more than said incivility ever could. Just some feedback on this situation.  ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC):::::
 * As long as Headbomb has the opportunity to remove the template, I find the action to be appropriate. It would be helpful if Barkeep49 had suggested they could remove the template in their edit summary. The template is still better than the uncivil remark. I would add that I found the remark to be more uncivil than "this is idiotic" but less uncivil than "you are an idiot". Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not some "respect my authority" sysop and so if Headbomb wants to remove the template and either mae clear that they were talking about content and not an editor (as Swarm suggests) or just go with something like "It continues ..." I have no objections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A well-earned scarlet letter that will hopefully deter all editors from referring to other editors' comments as "idiocy". Lev!vich 03:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in Scarlet letter's. Again this was something so mild I didn't even feel the need to leave a personal message to Headbomb about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're free to believe whatever you want, "scarlet letter" is a term referring to a stigma bestowed on someone, which branding their message with a redaction template indicating misbehavior certainly does. Moreover, you can claim all you want that you took the "lenient" route, and yet that doesn't change the fact that doing what you did is a fairly strict action, far more strict than simply leaving a friendly note on a talkpage. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice that you also didn't choose to address the underlying conflict but instead chose to address something you felt needed saying. One of the great boons of editing Wikipedia as a volunteer is we have discretion about how we choose to invest our time and I think we both demonstrated that in this thread. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How about we get back on topic here? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Back on topic, the "neutral" WPC notice wasn't really that neutral. "Please see [link]" would be better; it's not too late to replace it. FS should have replaced it with a neutral statement instead of removing it altogether. Everything else, e.g. whether various statements fail verification or not, is a content dispute. Lev!vich 03:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can all argue all day and all night that a "scarlet letter" is deserved, but we're now nine messages deep into a side exchange about the censorship of a frustrated editor invoking the term "idiocy", on the basis of "preventing this thread from spiraling in unhelpful directions", whilst simultaneously having made no progress on the complaint itself. In other words, we're not even hung up on the complaint, nor the complainant's civility at this point, we're hung up on the tertiary complaint of an admin's dubious civility enforcement. We have an admin not accepting feedback and instead accusing another admin for being unhelpful for raising the point that they were being unhelpful. It's comical. As I said, I'm all for siding with and enforcing civility, but there are times we must determine whether taking stern civility-enforcement actions in response to a frustrated editor is actually a net positive to the project, and clearly, in this case, this was counterproductive. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I did consider your feedback. As I noted above (apologies for the typo now produced a second time). I read it differently than you and conceded that your way of reading could have been correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't see that message. I retract what I said about you not accepting feedback and on the contrary I appreciate your willingness to hear out a different interpretation. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the main idea here was tendentious Bach arrangements. Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think Francis Schonken's objections are wrong and, frankly, bizarre. The provided source definitely and unambiguously verifies the claim being made. Anyway, here is a book in which Morricone himself verifies it. That should settle the matter. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 08:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute, so why here? Morricone is no reliable source for what he did, no? What he did was a citation from the theme from the Prelude, not an arrangement of the piece, not even of the prelude (missing the counterpoint), so the removed fact is indeed wrong (as Francis explained on the talk). And I agree that it is trivia for that article, - how about adding it to Morricone? - You probably know that Francis banned me from his talk page, but he often - as here - has the facts right. Discussion style is a different matter, but can admins help with that? Ask Boing and Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (Sorry folks, not getting involved. I'm just going to listen to BWV 543 instead, which should be far more conducive to a restful Saturday. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC))
 * enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , not sure it's a content dispute, it's a behavioural issue. Francis Schonken is being disruptive and WP:POINTy, and really needs to stop I reckon. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , $DEITY knows. Ideally by friends helping Francis to stop being an ass. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure why Morricone's statements about his own work are unreliable. You'll have to explain that one to me. I also think it would be a trivial factoid in the Ennio Morricone article (he wrote a lot of stuff and had a lot of influences on his work), but useful as an example of BWV543's appearances in popular culture. If the only issue is quibbling that we don't like the word arrangement then the solution is to pick a more fitting word, not to forbid all mention of it. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 12:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that all Morricone said about his work is per se unreliable, only that what someone says about his own work is not necessarily holy scriptures. What one person would call arrangement, another might call a quotation, and a third stealing material. I'd be with the second. Taking a bit from a work is obviously not an arrangement in the sense of our article arrangement, even if a source or two use that term. Back to "true vs. verifiable", a general Wikipedia problem. In this case, had both parties observed WP:BRD, meaning going to discussion instead of edit war, others might have noticed sooner. I only noticed when it arrived on Francis' talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are generally reliable for non-contentious material about themselves. However that doesnt mean 'factually accurate'. A primary source can still be wrong when talking about themselves. So if a statement from a primary source about themselves is clearly incorrect, either deliberately or by the primary source being unclear, its not a realiable source at that point. Gerda has explained the technical issues that mean the original removed fact is incorrect, but this sort of minor niggle is usually a result of people talking in more general terms than the technical definitions actually allow for. Personally its a trivial mountain out of molehill territory for me as well, but if an editor removes something because it isnt factually accurate, the onus, even on so annoyingly minor a point, is to provide a citation that explicitly supports it or rework the material to the point where it reflects the source. Not being an expert on classical music, I am happy to defer to Gerda here if they say its wrong, its almost certainly going to be wrong. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Content disputes do not belong here. This should be closed and the dispute should be moved to the article's talk page. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue reported here isn't the content dispute, it's the tendentious gaslighting behaviour of FS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to assign motives to come to that conclusion. I see an argument about content. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Claiming that a source's mention of BWV 543 (which has no 'official' name) isn't really a mention of BWV 543 because the source doesn't call it the same as the Wikpiedia article, as well as reverting requests for comments on a relevant Wikiproject is clear tendentious and gaslighting behaviour. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to discredit the France Musique page; this is a nice list of names including Marc Voinchet and Pierre Charvet. It seems to be of the same caliber as NPR here in the US, or the BBC in the UK--no good reason whatsoever to cast aspersion on them, as was done on the talk page. In other words, the "failed verification" tag was incorrect, and doing it again was obviously pointy; FS chose that tag and not "unreliable source", so they'll have to explain that at least twice they missed "...and Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan (1969)", or refused to look for it--or disagreed that, eh, BWV 543 meant something other than BWV 543, or however I am supposed to read that semantic juggling act. But welcome,, to the wonderful world of Francis Schonken. I wish you much patience. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've already encountered that world, and it never was pleasant. But this episode crosses a line. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please watch Die güldne Sonne voll Freud und Wonne in that wonderful world. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Back to the topic: the key word in France Musique is "citing" (vs. "arranging"), - it would have been so easy if Francis had said this little thing in the beginning, instead of causing another waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Dutch are very direct. But in this case Francis is just being belligerent. I'd hate to drive him away, but this really is not acceptable. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis is from Belgium, and I don't think what we need is national prejudice. The Francis I know is sure that all this served the article integrity. I don't agree, of course, but would not know how to get the message across that I explained just above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Nakamuradavid
The Nakamuradavid has made hostile and uncivil responses on the |United States Army Special Forces Talk Page. The user has violated the Talk page guidelines and WP:UNCIVIL. I have reviewed the |Dispute Resolution policy but feel that the user's responses goes beyond the suggested first and second step. I request that you please review the talk page, much appreciated. -Signaleer (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparent COI and potential legal threat
With this diff, appears to be explicitly indicating that they have a COI with regards to Milli Vanilli, have no intention of following COI protocols, and are prepared to pursue legal action. DonIago (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am leaving them an ultimatum on the issue, and will be keeping my eye on it. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've blocked indef. Without intending to disrespect CaptainEek's approach, we don't and have never wasted time negotiating the retraction of explicit legal threats, we block by default until the legal threat has been unequivocally retracted. I see no reason to give this user special treatment when they are explicitly issuing threats. This is the community's position, and an environment in which editors need to be afraid or intimidated by legal threats and admins will decline or hesitate to enforce NLT is not a safe environment for an independent academic project. ~Swarm~  {sting} 04:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both! DonIago (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

TomStar81

 * I've reopened this (after a NAC). I'm concerned at the response to the unblock request (by User:TomStar81) that reads, in part: "...for the record, the threshold for inclusion is and always has been verifiability, not truth, so all this bullshit about false information is just that: Bullshit. Deal with it. Or don't. We don't care." (in which "verifiability, not truth" is linked to WP:V). This is not Wikipedias position and is no way to address an article subject who has valid BLP concerns about how we have written about them, even if they have expressed themselves badly. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Might investigating the sources be worth it? Though I see no reason for the user's added unsourced content to be reinstated. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 09:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reference to WP:V is fine, as is the legal threat block, but the rest is a shockingly bad way to reply to a user who appears to have genuine concerns and is simply annoyed at what they see as a misleading article, TomStar81, what were you thinking about? Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Truth be told, the last few years I feel like I've gotten just generally angrier. At everything. And I'm not sure why. Maybe I sensed OWN issues and objected. Maybe I feel like he had it coming. Maybe I'm just tired of getting the short end of the stick on this board. Whatever the reason, it is a rather harsh reply, if it needs to be scaled back or if I need a trout I'll understand. I really need to remember to think before I act, especially on matter like this. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and re-closed the above section while opening this subsection here since strictly speaking the above issues is resolved with the block, what I wrote is a separate car on the train so it should be addressed her but as its not per se related to the legal threat thread above it just makes more sense to split the two up as it were. I hope that's ok, if not then feel free to revert. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not troubled by such gnoming; I'd be more interested in seeing what you're going to do to fix the issue on the user in question's talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy. It would be behavior befitting of an admin to make amends on what was honestly an unusually brusque response to a block request.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you find yourself unable to perform your function as an admin adequately because you've "gotten just generally angrier. At everything." then I suggest voluntarily giving up your sysop rights until you're in a better mental state. It's unacceptable for an administrator to randomly lash out at a regular user who's just going about his/her business. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just need to remind myself to type, then stop and read it and think about before hitting save. As for the reply, i'll apologize and rephrase to something more diplomatic. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * How's this? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my non-admin opinion? It's...not great... I think you're letting too much of your personal frustration shine through. If they're being blocked for NLT/COI, then I'd stick to a brief explanation that that's why they're being blocked and what their path to remediation should be. But I'm happy to defer to actual admins on this. DonIago (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I know I'm just a lowly IP but, in my opinion, it doesn't really read as an apology.  It basically just says "I was called out for being rude, but here's why you probably still deserved it."  Not meaning this as any sort of direct criticism on you, just an outsider perspective on the overall tone of what you wrote.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.197.37 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Awful. You start by making it clear you are only posting again because you are, in your words, "in trouble". You go on to say "It doesn't matter if the article is pocketed with misinformation", talk of "excuses from people like you" (my emphasis) and accuse them of "a hissy fit", showing no empathy whatsoever. And still you do nothing to address their legitimate BLP concerns Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing restored in these two reverts (Special:Diff/983242268 and Special:Diff/983248381) jumps out to me as a BLP violation. What BLP vios would you presume the user saw? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 23:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is unclear to me as well what the "legitimate BLP concerns" are here. It's important that any actual BLP violations be identified and resolved, regardless of the user's conduct, and regardless of Tom's tone in his messages. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you both read Jroccolv's edit summaries in article space. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Erik Weistiss was removed. His inclusion was unsourced, so that's a BLP vio fixed. I've also trimmed one piece of material tagged as citation needed. Feel free to revert if I botched it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 09:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Swarm. If there truly are BLP violations, we should just get straight to correcting them. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 09:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It concerns me that, BLP violations or no BLP violations, Tom's dubious message remains in place. While I feel the block itself was justified, and declining the unblock was similarly justified as the request did not address the reasons for the block, I don't feel that the blocked editor deserved to be spoken to in the manner they were, and if anything, assuming that editor was on the level (poor methodology notwithstanding), I'm not sure what good is intended to come from addressing them in such a manner. DonIago (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While Tom's response was harsh, I've looked over this editor's edit history which over the year all involves making sure she and her sister get credit as background singers on Milli Vanilli recordings without providing one reliable source supporting this fact. And they are both mentioned as singers any way. And over time, she has gotten angrier and angrier to the point of saying she was going to get legal representation. I've seen her Twitter account where she complains about her Wikipedia mentions and is trying to get attention from Tucker Carlson and the White House about it! If this isn't conflict of interest editing and SPA, I'm not sure what is. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. So all roads really do lead to Trump. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I retract my concern. :p DonIago (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, darn it, you made me look! :p DonIago (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 23.120.104.213
I was patrolling the recent changes feed, and I encountered an unconstructive edit by this IP editor on Frank Luntz. I initially thought it was vandalism, but after looking at all of their prior contributions, I have concluded that this is a classic case of tendentious editing. As a matter of fact, I'm unsure if they've ever made a good edit. After I reverted one of their edits and warned them (admittedly incorrectly though), they personally attacked me on my talk page. I thought that this would be the best place to post about the incident. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked three months. Obvious troll is obvious.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Food fighter
For the past few weeks, an IP editor from Marseille (2A01:E34:EC2E:5270::/64) has been making the rounds of Middle Eastern food articles, making unsourced claims about national origins of dishes. Their edits consist almost entirely of adding "Lebanon", and deleting the names of other countries or regions, generally in contradiction to existing sources. They don't use edit summaries or talk pages. I've left four warnings (could have been "unsourced" but I went with "NPOV"), and reverted almost all of their edits, but they continue. For example:


 * Adding Lebanon as country of origin for basbousa, despite there being no evidence for this, and removing mentions of Armenia, Greece, and Turkey:.
 * Unexplained deletion of mention of Ottoman and other countries' influence on Lebanese cuisine:
 * Deletion of sourced content about non-Arab variations:
 * Other unsourced changes to national origins:, , , , etc.
 * Also, falsely inflating the number of Muslims in Lebanon, contradicting the existing source:

--IamNotU (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with these points, this seems like tendentious nationalistic editing. A rangeblock may be in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rangeblocked for a month. This looks to be one of those IPv6 /64 ranges that's exclusively used by one customer - it's only even really a rangeblock on a technicality, it's one user. They've been doing the same unhelpful thing intermittently for some time, and it seems time they stopped. ~ mazca  talk 22:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 51.175.129.190
This IP user's contributions all state that he has "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links", but is doing no such thing, just inserting "" in front of a "short description" template. No idea what this is supposed to be accomplishing. Fabrickator (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked temporarily for disruptive editing. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Threats by User:MrsCaptcha
Fair warning: This is more Sushant Singh Rajput bullshit.

After coming off a 24h block for edit-warring (they had been adding conspiracy theory nonsense - the intervening edits are all her), came back with this threat on the article's talk page. When challenged on this, her responce was, shall we say, inadequate. I'm thus here asking for a partial block from Sushant Singh Rajput and the related article Death of Sushant Singh Rajput for her, as she's not an SPA as far as I can tell. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 17:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced a partial block would be enough given that the offending content actually occurred on a talk page. Best, Darren-M   talk  17:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On a user talk page, I should have said. Darren-M   talk  17:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The actual threat was on Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, not a user talk page. It's based on that, her very recent block, and her flippant non-apology apology responce to being called out on it, that has me seeking a partial block from the topic. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 17:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, it was the non-apology/wiki-lawyering that had me wondering whether a partial was sufficient. Darren-M   talk  18:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have blocked from that article and its talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll say up front I'm involved, as I issued the 24h block earlier, however their editing history is a bit curious. Except for 3 edits earlier this March, the user hadn't edited in 3 years. All of their mainspace edits were on two articles: Linguistics and Psychoanalysis. All of a sudden there's this interest in the SSR article? Something seems a bit off. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We've had a lot of retired/semiretired Indian editors getting involved with the Sushant Singh Rajput article. From what I understand, he had a large and dedicated fanbase. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 18:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this editor is from India, but they were apparently recruited to edit this article (per the linked edit summary.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, an Indian sleeper writing threats of the "you are being watched" sort are WP:EMERGENCY-level threats, given the coordinated off-wiki harassment that's been happening to people who edit in those topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. I've been dealing with it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that such was a thing, as this is the only India-related article I've been involved on for any serious length of time as of late. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 19:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rinse it out and squeeze it dry, looks like they need a WP:NOTHERE indef for taking part in some sort of off-Wiki coordinated campaign., would you care to explain your recruitment and discuss any off-Wiki solicitation to edit this encyclopedia? -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 19:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Too late, looks like GorillaWarfare blocked. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 19:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, that kind of threat says to me they have no business editing the encyclopedia at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Legal Threats by Kyle Falconer PR team
The following information was added by both an IP address and Jellyman12345 that claims to be part of Kyle Falconer's management team and or the PR Team. There is this edit and this edit summary both stating that they will take things further. Thank you, -- VViking Talk Edits 15:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * IP is blocked. Is the account also part of the team? 331dot (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is never mentioned that the account is part of the team but IP responded on the users talk page making it seem like the same account, in addition to the probable sock or logging out to exit. But I cannot be positive-- VViking Talk Edits 15:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this was SPI I would say this is a clear behavioral match, as such I have blocked the account as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed
I've been asking over and over on AIV to have a rangeblock placed on, but no action has been taken. Since August (it's back further than that but they've been increasing activity since then), one user on the range has been continuing to vandalize Subcontinent television network articles (mainly children's networks of the 'Cartoon Network Pakistan carries Disney shows from India and is owned by Viacom's Bangladeshi division' type) and has refused to communicate through voluminous talk page warnings. Some action needs to be taken; RFP on the affected pages is nigh useless here. The good edits on other IPs in the range sadly are outdone by the one user spamming their garbage.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 14:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A /16 is comically overbroad - that range has addresses in (at least, I stopped looking) China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and North Carolina. 103.203.92.0/22 is as far as that one isp holds.  I'll likely block shortly once I look into the history a bit more. —Cryptic 15:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you...you are correct that the one you blocked is a little more finessed.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 15:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive unsourced edits to BLP articles
Though this editor has received multiple warnings, including at least 3 final ones, a previous block for this very reason as well as a personal plea from myself, they continue to add unsourced info to BLP articles and have made zero attempt at discussing these issues on their talk page, as is required. Examples of these disruptive edits can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It should be noted that these edits were all made after my personal plea, linked above. If an admin could cast an eye on this I'd be most grateful.  Rob van  vee  08:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked until they communicate, as they've been warned many times and blocked before for the same problem. I linked WP:Communication is required on their page for their reading pleasure.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dennis.  Rob van  vee  12:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

VFS Global
VFS Global was ANI protected until September 30. Since then, a few fake accounts with no other edits have started to whitewash this account, adding a bunch of marketing double-speak (changing "service fees" to "user-pay revenue model" for instance) and removing criticism. See User:Geo198 for instance. VFS Global has, coincidentally I'm sure, recently shot up from 1.6 to 4.4 stars at Trustpilot with thousands of reviews from first time users...  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  07:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , semiprotection re-imposed for 1 year. I blocked the whitewashers. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - thank you, that was quick and painless.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  12:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Sareh Nouri
Persistent promotional editing by multiple accounts; I've reverted it to the last cleaned up version by. Requesting page protection and/or user blocks if necessary, but mostly more eyes and some sort of assistance. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone please block that IP for a good long while. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, . But I wouldn't be too surprised if the registered account from last year, or some other new account, suddenly appeared. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours. If things continue, let me know, and I'll take things from there. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Siege of Plevna
More eyes needed at Siege of Plevna. I suspect ongoing sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071 and Special:Contributions/Barbaros10711923. pinging the blocking admin. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah KutDestanı1916 is User:KazımKarabekir500 is (apparently) KızılBörü1071. That's one out of the way. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, this article is being bombarded. Obvious sockpuppetry and abuse.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Furtherthanfrappe
This account appears to have been blocked by a CheckUser six months ago as a sockpuppet account. The blocked sock is now using their talk page for an obscene rant. Blocking the talkpage is obvious. I don't know who the master account is, and so can't file a sockpuppet report, but would suggest a CheckUser check for other accounts from the same IP address (or address range). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the talkpage, but I can't handle the sockpuppet side of things - so this should not yet be closed Nosebagbear (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, mebbe someone with the bit should revdel those edits? At least one of those is pretty damned egregious.  He  iro  16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , agree. Special:Emailuser/Oversight finds them, I've emailed. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did rev-del those edits earlier, Guy thanks for the email to OS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This looks mighty similar to a user I blocked a few days ago and then removed TPA from this morning: User talk:Bring democracy to Belarus NOW. Don't have a minute to look into it at the moment but will do so later if another CU doesn't beat me to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Nosebagbear, please don't remove checkuserblock-account from the block rationale when a CheckUser adds it. This needs to stay in the block rationale because there are special rules about CU blocks.  I also don't quite understand why you re-enabled email access.  Do you think this person needs the ability to email people? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would bet that was Twinkle's fault, it has a nasty habit of applying default settings even when they've been changed in prior blocks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Before this gets closed, this was the creep that I refer to here. Just wanted to spread awareness of how to deal with this. In short, everyone here did the right thing. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you had that experience. I've seen some rude bullshit, racism, sexism, and assorted other nonsense in the 12 years I've been here, but that may been the single most loathsome edit I've ever encountered onwiki.  He  iro  01:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , this delightful comment about the death of my sister certainly sticks in my memory. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's Evlekis. Just when it seemed we had some fresh blood--no, same old same old. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Threats and dubious decision by Ymblanter
Although Ymblanter arbitrates articles on Armenia-Azerbaijan topic, he/she has repeatedly made obvious pro-Azerbaijani decisions. The latest dubious one was when he renamed and protected  the new name of the village used by president Aliyev in Twitter, three days before it was officially renamed by the Azerbaijani parliament. After I pointed this out to him, he twice tried to threaten me, calling me "Dear user with 68 edits" and claiming I'm uncivil. Vaan23 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Boomerang for this personal attack, which as far as I can tell, is the only attempt Vaan23 made to discuss this before coming to ANI. Lev!vich 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to be able to make any meaningful comment on whether or not this is a case of the wrong version or not; it also doesn't really matter. As Ymblanter has pointed out, the venue to litigate that is WP:RM. The point of move protection is to prevent move warring and have people talk it out, not to enforce the protecting sysop's opinion. I do however agree with that your comment did constitute a personal attack; while references to edit counts might not be the nicest thing to say, accusing people of acting in bad faith to promote a dictator's interests is far worse. I recommend you retract that statement. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the explanation and for the third opinion. My problem is that I have an opinion I want to express (sorry, I still think Ymblanter's edits are biased), but off course I want to refrain of personal attacks to anyone here. Should I rewrite my statement to something like "I consider your edit biased and unjustified"? Vaan23 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know which of Ymblanter's edits you consider biased or unjustified; if you want to have a discussion about bias, you'll have to provide diffs supporting your argument. Again: I recommend you retract your statement and apologise. Whether you agree with the actions Ymblanter has taken or not, accusing him of being in the pocket of a dictator is not acceptable – and it is definitely not conducive to actually having a constructive conversation about your grievances. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I indeed seem to be the administrator who has recently been most involved with arbitration enforcement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area. As you may know, a few days ago a war resumed over the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh, with a lot of disinformation from both sides of the conflict, and this resulted in a lot of partisan editing on Wikipedia. None of the sides likes what I am doing, and I was repeatedly accused in being pro-Armenian, anti-Armenian, pro-Azeri, and anti-Azeri editor. I will be by the way really delighted if some other administrators show any interest in the topic, and I then have more time for other things, which I find, to be honest, more interesting. Anyway, after I semi-protected Suqovuşan, Tartar for 6 months as arbitration enforcement due to the extensive disruption and move-protected it at the WP:Wrong version after I have seen repeated moves of the article, it happened to stay at the Azeri name, which made Armenian users particularly unhappy. As a result, Vaan 23, a relatively new user, accused me and Solavirum, whom I do not know, in "distorting the facts" . Well, I am obviously aware of the fact that as administrator I am subject to a greater number of personal attacks then I would like to, and that my actions are supposed to be scrutinized, and in most cases I just let the accusations go. However, distorting facts is not an aspersion I will let stand on Wikipedia. I suggested that Vaan23 apologized, and Solavirum left a message at their talk page warning about personal attacks. Vaan23 ignored both messages and continued editing. When I realized this, I made clear to them that they need to apologize and strike down the aspersion, otherwise I would take them to ANI. Apparently, they decided that the best strategy is not to apologize, but to go to ANI and to double down repeating the aspersion and portraying me as a pro-Azeri editor. I am afraid at this point we need a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , whereas this is a step in a good direction,. it is not really acceptable since I was responding on your old statement, not on the new one. You should have crossed out the old statement and add the new one. For the record, I obviously do not consider my edits biased.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , please be calm and patient during discussions. Anyways, as I've been tagged here, and kinda a part of this issue, why not give my opinion about it. Vaan23 called (and for some reason, me) of being 'ahead of a dictator and distorting facts', which violated WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and I left a message informing Vaan23 here. And this application is just WP:BUNGEE. --► Sincerely:  Sola  Virum  19:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter earned himself quite a notoriety by pushing his anti-Ukrainian as well as anti-LGBQT views in his edits and reverts on List of people from Ukraine. See, for instance, just a small sample of his edits and reverts and . In the first of those, Ymblanter deletes the LGBQT section in List of people from Ukraine, while simultaneously claiming that the editor who added this section is blocked from Wikipedia for calling Ymblanter a homophobe. As Ymblanter puts it, "for unfounded accusations in homophoby". No less. In the second edit, Ymblanter likely sets the Wikipedia record for the most succinct justification of a revert, by entering just "wtf?" for an explanation. Should the guy be given some sort of uncivility medal, perhaps, as soon as possible?
 * Ymblanter also launched quite a few of personal attacks on distinguished Ukrainian editor User:Mzajac and mass-reverted the edits of this editor on Ukrainian spelling of the name of Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, while threatening the editor with bans - see for instance [] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Asking an editor to stop their disruptive edits is not a personal attack. Neither is threatening to seek consensus for a topic ban. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 03:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Mzajac is obsessively trying to rename any mention of the Kievan Rus' to "Kyivan Rus'", despite opposition by other editors in an ongoing discussion. Ymblanter was justified in reverting the article to its previous state. Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No he was not justified in reverting that spelling change in a non-historical article on a Ukrainian subject, which is not being discussed. It’s another example of editors who refuse to accept the consensus RM of Kyiv, staking out “historical articles” as their fighting retreat, and then counterattacking anywhere and everywhere they think they can. Now they’ve enabled each other to revert, disparage (“obsessively”? Sour grapes, Dimadick!), and claim everything is being discussed to put a chill on progress. If you have specific edits of mine you have a problem with, list them at an ANI, and justify your objection with specific guidelines and facts. In the meantime stop slagging me in public and disrupting my editing. —Michael Z. 15:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you see Ymblanter continue to conduct personal attack among other editors, I suggested you to report the administrator to AIV because vandalism from administrators and see what consensus to be. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks to be a content dispute, with plenty of edit warring from both sides. I also can't see much evidence of Ymblanter's wrongdoing here; indeed, those who are bringing grievances here are WP:BOOMERANGing themselves.
 * : Addressing a message to someone this way is not a PA. Sure, as mentioned above, not the nicest way to word things, but not a personal attack nevertheless.
 * : Don't see how this is a PA either. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 06:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I had an issue with Ymblanter negatively labelling a recognizable group, and specifically me. It was only in a single comment, but I asked him to remove it, and he did so grudgingly, making it clear that he did not see anything was wrong with it. I blame this on a permissive environment for such offensive remarks in talk:Kyiv and related articles over the previous months and years, despite their being subject to discretionary sanctions in topics related to Eastern Europe.
 * The full comment, with my emphasis: (ec) I have actually taken it to ANI (and this is why we have this discussion at all), a few times, I have taken it once or twice to the arbitration enforcement, and since the community as a whole does not care I do not want to take every single case to ANI. My feeling is that I have already wasted too much time of the community. In this particular case, for historical reasons, there is a group of people who pushed for Kyiv, and there is no users who are consistently pushing to Kyiv (at least have never seen anybody who after the closure of the RfC was replacing Kyiv with Kiev in a modern context). I see daily edits on my watchlist, even though I removed from there almost all Ukraine-related articles. But, indeed, I should just stop. I realized already a long time ago that Wikipedia is not perfect, will never be perfect, and there will always be topic areas where I absolutely should not trust it. I am not going to spend months trying to topic-ban Mzajac or get them desysopped. I do not think it will be a productive use of my time, and I do not think this would be good for my health. My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. If the community thinks their activity is useful or at least not disruptive, let it be so. I am not going to spend my time on it anymore.-- This was two weeks after the community demonstrated consensus to rename Kyiv.
 * Our discussion on his talk
 * His initial token strike and comment while reinforcing his intent.
 * final strike.
 * This is not about edits or article naming, it is about labelling individuals and groups, creating and reinforcing negative national or other stereotypes, and thereby letting others infer the community’s permission to indulge in and escalate such language. I have seen many other negative and indefensible comments by other editors about “Ukrainian governmental interference in the process,” “Ukrainian nationalists,” “Ukrainian trolls,” “the torrent of nationalistic fervor,” “how many Cossacks can be summoned from the steppes,” a “Ukranian 'invasion',” and so on. I don’t see much point in a specific sanction over this. Some others have made worse comments, repeatedly, and shrugged off any criticism. But I have started to recognize a pattern of tacit reinforcement, and decided enough is enough, now. It would be nice to get some expression from the community that this toxic rhetoric is no longer welcome. —Michael Z.
 * Based on what I saw in the last couple of days on Talk:Kyiv - many editors indeed are routinely labelling a recognizable group of editors, who edit anything tangentially related to Ukraine, with derogatory language described above by Mzajac to belittle them and/or silence them. Recent case in point - editor felt it was okay to say that "English Wikipedia allowing "certain" editors to make Kiev->Kyiv changes on Wikipedia" is akin to "European powers allowing Germany annexing of Czechoslovakia" - I do not have a problem with an editor who wrote this and I even suspect maybe that they did not realize the gravity of the words they wrote (I even told them myself that, frankly, it is probably best to take this whole "Ukrainian nationalists editors invasion" thing as humorous hoax)), but regardless of someone's possible good intentions when writing such things, these repeated inflammatory comments from a large number of editors against a recognizable group of editors who make edits on Ukrainian topics do not make this group feel welcome on English Wikipedia. In terms of how to respond to this: again based the discussion from the last couple of days on Talk:Kyiv, it seems that the majory of the community does not care about this, with only two admins taking an active approach on this in that discussion: Mzajac made comments on Talk:Kyiv that he thinks such anti-Ukrainian rhetoric being used routinely and nonchalantly is toxic to English Wikipedia, while Ymblanter actively reinforces this kind of anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. I do not know what can the community do about this (and if it is even possible to find a workable solution to this), but this is probably not good for the community if this continues any longer.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For the context, RogueRickC137 is a user indefinitely blocked here and currently evading their block. (This is based on a behavioral evidence).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You sure about that one? Which user would you think Rogue is, then? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 07:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption in Kyiv/Kiev topic. Note that after I have left the above message I became aware of the SPI, Sockpuppet investigations/Piznajko. The IP above is likely a different user, who has as far as I know never registered.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption in Kyiv/Kiev topic. Note that after I have left the above message I became aware of the SPI, Sockpuppet investigations/Piznajko. The IP above is likely a different user, who has as far as I know never registered.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Break
Well, now in the above topic we got aspersions cast against me by three users: One user is relatively new, one is an LTA, and one is an administrator. I do not consider any of the accusations valid and any of the aspersions justified (though I am sure diffs can be found and carefully presented showing that in some episodes I could demonstrate a better behavior). I am not quite sure what the community expects of me now. Ideally, I would do nothing, but last time I have chosen to do nothing in a similar situation the consequence was that a significant fraction of the users believed the aspersions. I would welcome advise from users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter, I didn’t think I was casting any “aspersions.” I accused you point blank of insulting me and any editors from a national group you decided to associate with me as the next best thing to nazis and fascists, in a public forum, and refused to admit anything wrong with that. Sorry if I was too polite for this to be clear. —Michael Z. 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * May I ask for the diff where Ymblanter wrote the supposed "next best thing to nazis and fascists"? I didn't see it in any above diff. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 00:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. May I ask if you’re saying I should happily accept the label “Ukrainian ultra-nationalist” without looking up what that means? I apologize for that to everyone that I’ve wronged by it.
 * Now may I ask which national group and extremist political ideology you’d like other editors to tie your name to when they don’t agree with your edits? —Michael Z. 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that's uncalled for. I'm WP:UNINVOLVED, as well as not living there. And nowhere in that reply did I ever claim that you should accept it, only that I can't see any evidence for the above insult. Sorry, but you also did not answer the question. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 02:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi this is the diff that you are looking for, which Mzajac already provided above (and I think it is implied above that when Ymlanter used the term "ultra-nationalists", that term can be perceived by some as the "next best thing to nazis and fascists")? . Apologies for the somewhat emotional response from Mzajac above - the whole "Ukrainian nationalists conspiracy " thing has made many editors emotional, as they take personal offense in such name calling.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, . Personally I'm reading it as a "borderline personal attack". My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists could be a reference to past disruption by said ultra-nationalists. Or a personal attack against those in the dispute. Then again, this is an uninvolved editor's opinion, so it could be read differently by those in the dispute. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 03:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was not clear the first time. I read your comment as a sarcastic challenge.
 * Ymblanter’s comment labelled me and an unspecific group of editors POV-pushing Ukrainian ultranationalists. Apparently the “POV” is that the consensus name Kyiv is used in articles where it is not challenged. The comment was part of a long exchange that Ymblanter entered with this comment, referring to an edit that I had made, they reverted, and we discussed.
 * When I look up ultranationalism, which I linked above, I see that this is a political view. Having not discussed either my nationality nor my politics with Ymblanter, I assume Ymblanter is applying the label to me and to Ukrainian editors strictly for its negative associations, and using a negative stereotype that is found in hateful anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. That article’s second and third sentences say “When combined with the notion of national rebirth, ultranationalism is a key foundation of fascism. Some ultranationalist organisations have been designated as terrorist movements by certain nation states.” Since Ymblanter brought editors’ politics and nationality into it, I would suggest that they have actually revealed something about their own views on politics and nationality in the offending comment, and offer them the opportunity to clarify those views. —Michael Z. 14:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but may be you should assume less and actually read and listen more.
 * I have explained my views at least several times, but you just dis not listen.
 * Let me try again and let me be very clear.
 * We had a RM which was concluded as move Kiev to Kyiv. I did not participate in this discussion and in fact had the page unwatched.
 * You have understood the conclusion that it meant that (almost) every instance of Kiev must be replaced with Kyiv, with the possible exception of Chicken Kiev. You indeed started to move everything. In particular, you started to replace Kiev and Kievan Rus' in historical contexts, i.e. applied to the entities at the time the term "Kyiv" does not exist. Other users disagreed with you. I reverted on a couple of occasions (and I am sure there are hundreds of more occasions I have not reverted).
 * I opened the topic at ANI. You never reverted me back, but continued to make changes to other similar instances.
 * We also had influx of editors whose only contribution was to massively replace Kiev with Kyiv. One of them moved Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv, another one was doing replacements in the articles on Kiev Governorate.
 * JzG has opened an RfC at Talk:Kyiv concerning the historic usage, You actively participated in that RfC and badgered every single support, bringing all kind of arguments, to the point that people got tired and stopped replying to you because they thought it is useless.
 * Now, during this RfC you continued to replace Kiev with Kyiv in historical contexts, even though you were perfectly aware of the RfC ongoing and that it does not have a clear cut consensus for this replacement. I suggested one that you stop, I suggested another time that you stop. Other users suggested that you stop. You have not stopped.
 * You have seen the argument that the overwhelming majority of sources currently use Kievan Rus' (or Rus) but ignored it, continuing to insist that Kyivan Rus' is the only proper form since Kiev was moved to Kyiv.
 * As a result, we have I do not know how many - hundreds? thousands? instances of Kyiv in the articles which are doubtful, and even before the RfC has been concluded. This is exactly what Ukrainian ultranationalists would like to see on Wikipedia. I have written this. Now, you have thoroughly ignored everything I was saying before that, and instead said something that there is a group of people who is not ready to accept that Kiev is now Kyiv and so on. Now, you suddenly assumed that I wanted to say you are a Nazi.
 * But I said what I wanted to say, and not even necessarily anything about you. I apologize if you have understood in this way, this was not my intention.
 * You came to my talk page and proposed me a deal - I strike this reply, and you stop replacing Kiev with Kyiv for a month. This did not make sens to me - either replacing Kiev with Kyiv is correct, and then you should not stop it, or it is not correct, and then you should stop it forever, or at least until the consensus changes. I first said no. Then I had another thought and removed my comment.
 * Shortly before this, another user told me that I looked like an active promoter of Kiev. That was a clear sign to me that I should stop. I still think that what is going on is massive disruption, but I decided that if I am the only person who cares, I will let it go. If many users share this feeling, they will find some way to stop the disruption. I probably should have stopped earlier.
 * And I did. And I have not written anything about Kiev/Kyiv for more than a week, except for one message at AN, which was merely to support another user.
 * And now you came to the ANI topic which was not even about Kiev and hijacked it. I tried to make a subsection, and you hijacked it again. I am not sure what I should do. Last time I had such a pressure was from Fram, and we all know what the final result was.
 * And, to finish this wall of text, my motivation is not to impose pro-Russian views, not to label you a Nazi, and not even to keep Kievan Rus'. My motivation was to try to enforce WP:CONSENSUS. I failed miserably, and nothing good came out of it. I am sick of all this bullshit to be honest. However, I maintain that you do not have a slightest idea about my political views, and you will never be able to derive my political views just looking on my edits. It is very convenient to label everyone who disagrees with you (and dozens of users disagreed with you) but this is not how Wikipedia works.
 * I do not intend to resume this Kiev/Kyiv debate in any context, but unfortunately per WP:ADMINACCT I had to write this explanation - which I have provided to you at previous occasions, at no avail.
 * Now could we finally stop this please? I am not editing in the topic area and I do not intend to edit in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See, for example, in Mzajac's comment above: Now may I ask which national group and extremist political ideology you’d like other editors to tie your name to when they don’t agree with your edits?. For having the audacity to ask for evidence, I must have some extremist political ideology? Now that's a personal attack IMO, but we'll see what others think. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter, you have a bit of nerve dropping your complaints here, with ample assumptions on motivation, assumptions of bad faith, and aspersions of your own (“You have understood . . . ,” started to move “everything”, “I am sure there are hundreds of more occasions”), to continue to try to justify your inexcusable remark. You and I disagree on facts and interpretations, but I took every revert by you and a minority of others to discussion, respected their disagreement regardless of the merit of their arguments, adjusted my work based on feedback, and I am continuing it without further complaints. I suppose I might have eaten breakfast “exactly what Ukrainian ultranationalists would like” in your opinion, but that doesn’t give you the right to label and smear me and “a group of people,” either for eating breakfast or using a consensus spelling where it seems appropriate. Even if your interpretation of the facts and consensus were a hundred percent correct and those you have name-called are all completely in the wrong regarding this question of writing style. And okay, I fully accept your explanation that you didn’t mean “Nazi,” and appreciate the apology for that. But you still labelled me and other editors as POV-pushing Ukrainian ultranationalists, over spelling. You continue defending it, right in front of everyone here at ANI, but it remains unacceptable. —Michael Z. 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I said all what I had to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter : please immediately cease and desist any homophobic censorship attempts on the LGBQT-related entries in in the List of Ukrainians ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:2DD0:DD57:B9E9:23C4:8821 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He has already stopped long before your comment. And what homophobic censorship attempts have been written? Please provide diffs. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 23:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum to above reply: If you are talking about this, then it really is what it says on the tin; unsourced. Also, the name changes in the reverted edit are against consensus while an RFC is ongoing. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). This message was left at 23:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The harrassment of should just be stopped, as well reiterating issues that have been discussed or settled, as I have partially taking part of the discussions. He followed the other admins ask, striked the comment, removed even parts, and voluntarily retreated already from the topic for now. He has the right to have an opinion despite, as others as well, even there are disagreements. It is a fact there are have/been a group of editors who were acting to quickly in the Kiev/Kyiv issue, a little bit misinterpreting the resolution and without waiting the complete outcome of the discussions. Overheated Ukrainian-Russian issues should not be imported here, not even at admin-admin level, all of us here are Wikipedians. Factually and professionally, his concerns on the issues were legitimate, also shared by non-Ukrainian or non-Russian (related) editors, btw. Again, as he retreated from the issue, any rally on him about after this is just not elegant. The worst thing is when editors precious editing time is wasted for a bit unserious soap operas, which could be better used on useful editing. I am disappointed to see an Armenian-Azerbaijani issue ended up a different nationalityX-nationalityY issue. This issue should be closed and only root cause shout be artbitrated, which outcome seems clear (no problem with admin conduct). Anyway, I would restrict administator related complaints strictly to WP:AN, since administrator issues should be separated from average community issues. Have a nice day everyone!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Ymblanter didn't move the page, just protected it in response to a move war. OP then personally attacked Ymblanter. Ymblanter then advised the user to apologize, and left a followup message saying that if they did not apologize they would be reported to AN/I. This whole protracted thread we're having is a bit ridiculous. I don't like the optics of an someone demanding an apology under threat, but in this context Ymblanter literally would have been entirely justified in simply deleting the comment and blocking OP indefinitely with no further comment. It's probably what I would have done. Given how explicit the personal attack was, in response to an uninvolved admin action, giving you the choice to apologize or get reported to AN/I for an uninvolved review of the situation is hardly abusive. If Ymblanter has a provable bias and should not be working as an admin in this or any topic area, then that should be properly reported, reviewed and discussed, and it needs to go to Arbcom if necessary. But this is not the time or place. This complaint has no merit. ~Swarm~  {sting} 22:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Battleground behaviour from Graywalls not abating


I first interacted with Graywalls when they AFD'd the Civic Media Center library. I was alerted to the discussion since it was on my watchlist, I frequently edit articles about infoshops, social centres and squatting movements. I noticed Graywalls was exhibiting battleground behaviour, jumping on every response. We then met on Template:Squatting in the United States and ABC No Rio. At the latter Graywalls was deleting a "see also" section which had become sprawling, I offered a compromise and was reverted. We then discussed and I was not impressed with their appeal to an imagined consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Graywalls used the term BS which I took to mean "bullshit" and I queried why they would use it.

Graywalls then popped up at Squatting, making bold edits such as adding "Original research" and "Unreliable sources" to the top of the article without specifying what needed improving. I reverted and asked for clarification on which of the 130+ sources they were referring to. The talkpage debate became acrimonious since Graywalls would link to a guideline, I would reply with my interpretation, then Graywalls would launch into incomprehensible ranting so the debate would grind to a halt, then the BRD cycle would begin again. They were also throwing around terms such as bullshit, garbage, junk which I do not feel are conducive to a cordial debate.

Overall I found it hard to have a reasonable conversation and started to doubt that Graywalls is here to improve the encylopedia. I certainly lost faith on this edit, where Graywalls reverted me and took out the inbetween edits I had made. I was cross about my edits being carelessly discarded so I said "redo edits trashed by a bad revert, see talk Talk:Squatting#Improving_the_page", Graywalls gave what I thought was a grating apology, then seemed to get angry about my edit summary later. They even came to the brink of 3RR on a talkpage discussion about article rating!? I also started to notice that Graywalls was tracking my edits, for example popping up at Squat Milada.

Which brings us to today. After i have disengaged from Graywalls for five days, I see that Graywalls has now popped up at Squatting in the Netherlands, saying "search on "indymedia.nl" from the WP:RSP Independent Media Center brought me to this" - funny how Graywalls decided to start with that article as opposed to all the others in the list, especially since I have been editing it these last few days as part of a GA nomination. You could say it's a remarkable coincidence.

Graywalls has also reverted my edit on Dutch squatting ban, saying "(removing indymedia per WP:RSP and RS/N Oct. 2020)". This despite the only person to respond to my question about this specific source at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard actually saying "However, being generally unreliable doesn't prevent it from being cited alongside reliable sources when it contains primary source evidence, such as photographs, where editors have determined that this is useful". Meanwhile, Graywalls had contributed to the debate there by saying "I saw a dog do its business inside a Walmart a while back". To sum up, I feel that Graywalls is hounding my edits and probably editing not sober, as the replies tend to become incoherent as the day goes on. I am happy to collaborate to improve pages but this now becoming difficult. I have followed the dispute resolution steps and disengaged completely with Graywalls since October 4. Unfortunately their battleground behaviour continues to the point that I feel my edits are being hounded. I am disappointed to have to come here instead of spending my time on content creation. I feel I have already tried to engage with Graywalls and work this through on various talkpages and at RSN, but it hasn't worked. I feel the trend to double down on a position instead of debating is all too common on wikipedia. Normally I can simply ignore and move on, but the acrimony is spread across different pages and shows no sign of abating. Mujinga (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Graywalls' infoshop AfDs are also worth nothing (see, in particular, Articles for deletion/Bluestockings (bookstore)). Their nom-only AfD stats do not demonstrate a great correspondence with consensus, which suggests to me that Graywalls may be interested in nominating articles, particularly about left-leaning subjects, for non-notability related reasons. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand BS was impolite and you will see I withdrew it, I was just getting quite frustrated in the back and forth. If I come upon articles and problem sources (such as unreliable sources Independent Media Center, blogspot, and similar), I sometimes search them via insource: search. "funny how Graywalls decided to start with that article as opposed to all the others in the list". Why yes I actually do, and you can check that yourself. I don't edit, or not edit because of you. I am making them because they contain anecdotes and personal accounts and share same type sources. I clarified that to you in talk comment you left. In Squatting in the Netherlands, I noticed it was being processed in GA review, so I actually took it to talk instead of removing it directly to minimize disruption. BTW, for those not aware; IMC includes domains such as Indymedia.org, Indymedia.nl, Indybay.org, Phillyimc.org. The variants are listed in the "Independent Media Center" in WP:RSP list. Graywalls (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , I do nominate things in a cluster of similar things if they share similar issues. That was not a good nomination and I should have dug better for sources. I try to avoid these situations, and I do actually dig around deeper for sources after that happened. My decision to nom things are not based on left leaning or not. See Articles_for_deletion/Hell_Shaking_Street_Preachers and Articles_for_deletion/Camilla_Tyldum.


 * Graywalls (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , as I already retracted about an hour after it was originally said once you made me aware that it was offensive to you. I apologize if "BS" used in the context of my frustration with the argument. It's interesting that you keep insist on inserting sources like Squat.net, Indymedia.org even though you seem to be well aware of proper sourcing as can be seen here. It's rather contradictory that you're here using directed slight against me such as the unwarranted and untrue accusation that I am "not editing sober" when you came here partly to express your concerns about my language. In a different, but similar concerns about introducing contents based on questionable sources, you took to making attack on the other editor like calling their edits "vandalism" in your content dispute just as you labeled my edits "trashed" where it seems to be you were suggesting the onus was on them to prove the sources are not reliable source rather than on you to show sources are RS to be included. While you're not using swear words, you're making here directed attack such as accusing them of driving editors away. Graywalls (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the issued raised by OP, there are WP:OR/WP:NPOV concerns about Graywalls's photo uploads. These were uploaded as "own work" and added to articles with the following captions and edit summaries:

Is #8 a social distancing criticism? Additionally, (9) I'm scratching my head about adding a picture of an alarm system to Wapato Corrections Facility and (10) this image might be copyvio. Haven't gone through all the uploads or looked at other edits, but in looking through uploads, these ones jump out. Lev!vich 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not seeing how this relates to anything here. The mural picture was taken by myself and it is of relatively low resolution as part of the view of a park. No concerns about copyright have come up and if you believe that's a concern, I am happy to try to resolve it. And I don't know where you're going with the alarm panel. That seems like a content dispute. No issues have been raised before. #8 is visualizes the observations made by one of the newspapers; with my own picture since I happened to have one. "social distance criticism" where did that come from? Graywalls (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm finding the images especially problematic, and suggest NOTHERE problems. Behavior aside, there are NOT, OR, and POV problems with these images and their use. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The OP is about your editing in articles related to squatting (homelessness). Photos #1-5 are about homelessness, welfare, and drug addiction. #6-8 are other examples of OR/NPOV problems with photos. #8, "a number of workers close together in July 2020" is not really accurate (three might be a number, but "a number of" implies "many") and overly focuses on "close together", implying the company is ignoring social distancing protocols during the pandemic (July 2020). Otherwise, why would you write "close together" instead of just something like "a Hoffman construction site"? #9: why are we including an alarm system photo in an article about a facility? Seems like ... well, not a great idea to publicize that kind of information. #10: Unless you painted the mural, I believe it's copyvio for us to publish a photograph of it without the author's permission. Lev!vich 23:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't willfully put infringing images, but I took it down until it is figured out. Graywalls (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Re #9: To be fair, Wapato Corrections Facility isn't a corrections facility. But all those captions are definitely problematic, to say the least. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * True, a more accurate name would be "Wapato Mistakes Facility". Lev!vich 05:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that they want to work for a tabloid rag or internet shaming site rather than an encyclopaedia. Very poor quality photos of zero encyclopaedic value. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone think that these photos and captions are suitable for the encyclopedia? Number 4 just blows the mind, really. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it was built as a jail and it was never put into use and this is what the building is notable for. I didn't name the article so that isn't my issue. Graywalls (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For those who don't know, Wapato Corrections Facility was built as a prison but is now a homeless shelter. (I'm still wondering why we have a picture of the alarm panel of a homeless shelter.) Lev!vich 16:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - It looked rather interesting and someone who has never seen inside of such a building might find it cool too. Who knows if it's even in use. It's part of the original install back in early 2000s. The pictures weren't taken specifically for Wikipedia. If you take contents issues with that page, why haven't you taken it to the article's talk page? Graywalls (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because there are ten of them. (Maybe more, I just stopped at ten.) Lev!vich 17:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just remove a copy and paste of the Belinda Johnson article into their user talk page, without attribution, which also put mainspace categories into their user talkpage. It should be noted that it was not Graywalls that pasted it into the talk page. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo update: Looks like all the images and captions above except #7 have been removed from the articles by various editors and they haven't been reinstated except at Union Pacific Railroad but I think it's stable for the moment. #10 was deleted from Commons for copyvio. and are pending deletion at Commons. Lev!vich 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually pulled the mural photo from the article once it was made aware to me it might be infringing and I G7'd it over at Commons HERE and it was offline before it was deleted on buidhe's nomination. What are you trying to accomplish? Oh and I'm also noting that in a response to my question at Commons help desk, it was suggested that while it wouldn't be allowed on commons, it might be ok, as a low resolution picture uploaded only on English Wikipedia under fair use. It was a misunderstanding. Please assume good faith, thanks. Graywalls (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

More hounding
OK so from reading the above, it seems other people also have problems with Graywalls. I had hoped that posting here would stop the battleground behaviour and I am staying disengaged, however they have pinged me back here twice intending to carry on an argument and exhibiting the very behaviour I wanted to highlight originally. The second time they linked to my edits from as far back as March 2019, supplying hard evidence that they are stalking my edits (I first interacted with Graywalls last month). Mujinga (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You started the dispute in this noticeboard to share your concerns about my my word selection "BS" which you felt was unseemly for which I retracted in an hour after posting and apologized, but you made it a personal attack of accusing me of editing "not sober" against no personal attack. It's hardly stalking that I go investigate how you interact with other editors during a content dispute sharing what I found here in light of the very dispute you initiated. Spreading rumors like this in article talk is improper. Article talk pages are not for airing personal allegations. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mujinga, while I understand that this place can be a frustrating experience at times, ...probably editing not sober is a snide personal attack, intended to weaken Graywall's editorial and personal reputation. Do you routinely include these kinds of inflammatory personal comments when interacting with editors? I agree that the photo captions constitute OR and need to be removed or the content adequately sourced. Other than that I feel that this AN/I is starting to 'pile on', using the opportunity to go shopping for evidence of 'problematic' editing rather than provide straightforward diffs showing obvious violation of policy in line with the original dispute, which was entirely related to behavioral and civility issues. For the evidence of that supplied so far, Graywalls has retracted and apologized. RandomGnome (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a bit disappointed that I ask for admin assistance here and basically all I get in direct answer is more nonsensical arguments from Graywalls, the very thing I wanted to avoid. RandomGnome you have under 200 edits so I'm simply not interested in these sort of wild questions from you. I'm happy to draw a line under this matter for now, but if I have to deal with anything like this crap - Talk:Squatting - from Graywalls again I'll be back because I don't want to spend my editing time on wikipedia dealing with this time sink. Mujinga (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What's your threshold for number of edits required before someone can speak? Should I make 10,000 minor edits to qualify? Quantity over quality? Thankfully Wikipedia doesn't have an edit quota system and I personally believe it's a good thing to have more editors involved in discussion and oversight here. One does tend to see the same very active admins and non-admins here, and I'm sure they would agree that the burden could be better shared. RandomGnome (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:RandomGnome, being allowed to speak we all certainly are - and @Mujinga did not say that you aren't - only that he was not interested in your sorts of 'wild questions.' You may be entitled to the right to speak up, but if the content of your comments have little to no merit, you aren't entitled to have them be addressed - no matter how many edits you have - a low edit count is just bolster. As for the 'not sober' comment, I say (to anyone, not specifically Random Gnome): get real. Of course it was not a kind remark, but no reasonable person could claim that was a legitimate libel. That is, no intelligent person could ever possibly draw the conclusion that Graywalls is EWI because they saw Mujinga make that offhand remark. Also, for the record: I am fairly sure that it is NOT @User:Graywalls' place to go digging for dirt on @User:Mujinga that does not concern Graywalls DURING an ANI that Mujinga brought against Graywalls for various behaviour exhibited in interactions between the two of them. (And likewise, it would not be for Mujinga to do the same with Graywalls - which as far as I see he has not, but I will stand corrected if I am wrong). That is for the neutral parties responding to the ANI to do - not the parties involved. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh huh, and as you rightly point out, if the content of your comments have little to no merit, you aren't entitled to have them addressed. Dragging this conversation back to the point of the ANI, at this point a less involved editor should close this one out with a note that Graywalls and Mujinga should find a way to collaborate civilly or keep apart to avoid further action that might lead to sanctions. There is nothing actionable at this point. RandomGnome (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Propose Boomerang
I believe WP:BOOMERANG for civility and personal attack is in order for Mujinga who came here express concerns about language choice but has used contentious accusation like ...probably editing not sober and continuing to exhibit uncivil and demeaning attitude right on ANI. Such as that directed at another user RandomGnome you have under 200 edits so I'm simply not interested in these sort of wild questions from you. in the very grievance they've started, in addition to casting aspersion in inappropriate place. It's absurd they're using expression like this crap - Talk:Squatting when they're riled up over the way I said "BS" in the context I did. I have not since used expressions they've specifically found it offensive. Graywalls (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "not sober" was not cool, but I don't think it's boomerang worthy. Lev!vich 06:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've read many of the interactions linked to above, & while there is much smoke I don't see any fire. Nothing worthy of Admin attention, & I hope it will stay that way. I will offer the advice that the two of you try to stay away from each other. Inasmuch as there are over 6.1 million articles here, half of which are stubs, that shouldn't be hard to do. -- llywrch (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Echoing the above sentiment, can an uninvolved editor please close this one out as there doesn't appear to be anything actionable and no new information is likely to be forthcoming after several days of inaction. Thanks RandomGnome (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally the editor bringing the ANI action has stated they're now happy to draw a line under this matter for now RandomGnome (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil Behaviour, Source Deletion, and Article Neutrality (French Revolution)
Hello ANI,

On the following page, French Revolution, a user has been altering very sensitive information in the article, removing references, and rewording statements without any synthesis having been achieved on the talk page. The user – Robinvp11 – makes edits of his own accord despite at least three editors in the discussion being out of agreement with him and no consensus having been reached. He responds to other users with condescension and ad hominem (or simply does not respond at all) and does not seek input from other involved editors.

The neutrality of the article has now come into question, and a tag displaying such may need to be added. 021120x (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be aware in the future that users in question must be notified on their talk page as per the policies noted at the top of this page. I have done so for you. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  07:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am more than happy for the ANI to review the entire thread, which began when the individual above (a new editor) unilaterally changed the Lead of a key article to reflect an extremely contentious minority perspective and the page curator asked for support. I believe you'll find exactly the opposite; my apologies in advance and if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll also point out that posting in the discussion is normally interpreted as seeking input from others. I also don't see a need for a NPOV tag. Doug Weller  talk 13:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To correct an above misstatement, the page was not "unilaterally changed", nor did the "page curator" ask for support. The individual who raised the discussion had no connection to the page nor had any knowledge of the topic. User Robinvp11 has reverted the consensus lede as written by user Gwillhickers, without even providing a response to the user's lengthy post on the Talk page. Further, user Robinvp11 has removed information and primary source material that was not even under discussion; only two specific statements were being contested. The page should be reverted back to last edit by Gwillhickers, which is last point at which consensus was reached.


 * Regarding commenting on user talk page, comments would be no different than what has already been mentioned on article talk page. 021120x (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User Robinvp11 has reverted the consensus lede as written by user Gwillhickers. Emphasis in original. Do you have any WP:DIFFs? I can't find Gwillhickers ever editing the article in the past few years. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I ran a search through User Contribution Search and Gwillhickers has never edited the article proper (just the talk page on September 11 and 14), so you'll have to clarify what you mean by "consensus lede". — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  16:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Tenryuu 🐲, I was referring to the lede as it existed following the final comment of Gwillhickers, which received no further input. That lede summarization reflected what had been discussed on the page and was a synthesis of the contributions; subsequent edits have been done of the editor's own accord and have entirely changed the meaning of the lede paragraph – along with removing material that was not being contested. 021120x (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the first time in six years I've been involved in one of these, so I'm not sure how this works. Since an ANI escalation is relatively rare, I'd like to make a couple of points.
 * (1) The edit history for 'French Revolution' is clear; it shows (a) Gwillhickers has never been involved in editing the article. (b) the changes were inserted by User 021120x on 28th May, and (c) I am not the first person to object; they were removed on 24 June, a change later reversed by User 021120x on 25th on the grounds of Vandalism.
 * (2) On User talk:021120x there is a lengthy explanation by User:Acebulf as to their concerns re the edits made to the Lead, and that "you're stating a conclusion that isn't accepted by modern historiography as a generally accepted fact."
 * (3) While I'm happy to assume Good Intent, the explanation provided above at 17:07 is not an accurate summary of the discussion on the Talkpage;
 * (4) If you look at the article on American exceptionalism, User 021120x has reversed edits because they represent "a critique of the US created and propagated by European scholars". The same person who persistently denies the validity of European views on the US is now attempting to insert a perspective on the French Revolution which is a minority view even among American historians, and accusing me of 'lack of neutrality.' Robinvp11 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the lede as it existed following the final comment of Gwillhickers, which received no further input. I assume you're referring to ?
 * He responds to other users with condescension and ad hominem [...] The only places that I could potentially construe as condescension are
 * For the third time [...]
 * I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same, and
 * maybe read them yourself?,
 * though they seem to be born from frustration of a point that's going nowhere.
 * As a casual observer, I don't really see any blatant instances of incivility or personal attacks (ad hominem). Is there heated disagreement? Yes, but in my opinion it hasn't escalated to requiring administrator attention. In fact, this problem seems to be a better fit over at the dispute resolution noticeboard, as the majority of the problem appears to be coming from source interpretation and the application of Wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  to notify them of the link to a noticeboard that seems more appropriate for the problem. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tenryuu 🐲 The original claim was that two specific statements were not suited for the lede and should be removed from the lede, possibly to a different section, on the basis of not being "widely accepted". The editor involved has simply ignored or disregarded sources supporting acceptance, and overemphasized his own preferred sources. He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion. Based solely on what has been discussed, the page ought to have been reverted to its form before the discussion began minus, perhaps, the two sentences in question. What has been done beyond this is unfounded. 021120x (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That would make it a content dispute, not a behavioural one. Please provide WP:DIFFs of Robinvp11's comments that you find to be uncivil or making personal attacks, as I'm just shooting in the dark and playing the guessing game as to what was considered behaviourally inappropriate.
 * He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion. Emphasis in original. Just because something is being discussed doesn't make everything else off-limits. I don't see any discretionary sanctions being imposed on editing this area of Wikipedia (and scouring your talk pages doesn't turn anything up), nor are there page notices that appear when opening the editor window like COVID-19 pandemic. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because something is being discussed doesn't make everything else off-limits. The editor's rationale was that the removals and alterations were, which they largely were not.


 * Examples of uncivil tone, ad hominem, condescension:


 * For the third time...
 * I've done you the courtesy of reading the Sources provided
 * And nearly the entire post as signed on October 9, which begins with, "I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same." is littered with vitriol and ad hominem.


 * Additionally, the only reason Acebulf has become involved is because he has been stalking my contributions across multiple unrelated topics and pages, going against Wikipedia's policy of Hounding.


 * There was a further contribution from another editor on October 11, 2020 which now presents a more balanced viewpoint, and it seems that the leading paragraph has been adjusted to reflect this. A discussion will be opened on the dispute resolution noticeboard as suggested. 021120x (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

As I've said before, please provide diffs if you're going to accuse someone or just provide context in general: it makes it a lot easier to follow when things have happened and who did what. If wants to explain their rationale for making that edit they're more than welcome to do so, but so far I don't believe anyone mentioned here needs to be sanctioned or blocked. Please take this to the DRN. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  16:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment from involved editor. The editor that brought this thread has made controversial edits and refused to address them with anything substantive. As such, the consensus brought forth from the RFC is that they should be removed. Perhaps requesting administrative closure on the RFC would solve this entire situation. Acebulf (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it appears that the RFC was and, but looking at what's on the talk page, I'm not sure anyone can assume that the RFC consensus is that they should be removed; rather, it doesn't seem there is a consensus, which is when I believe WP:STATUSQUO would come into effect. In this case, I think that would still have the same result as removing those claims.
 * That being said, a formal close would probably help alleviate the situation. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

, This issue was moved to the DRN as directed. However, the DRN moderator has stated that they will not continue with the review if the issue is still open here. Can the issue be closed here, and are you able to inform the moderator of this once it is done? 021120x (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , Since you're already here, care to explain why you're telling people to stop discussing the article on the article talk page? You have no authority to control who speaks on talk pages, nor do you have the authority to silence them when the discussion doesn't go your way. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please desist from WP:HOUNDING. The DRN moderator will not continue to review the dispute if there is an active discussion. Thus, commenting must be paused.
 * Why are you accusing me of hounding? You made this ANI, and you made the DRN. Both of which I'm tagged in. Please stop telling users they are not allowed to talk. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  21:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have become too involved I'll ask someone else to close this if they feel it's appropriate. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is a long thread, and I only noticed this comment of yours, nigh ten days later. I understand your recusal, and just wanted to make sure the thread doesn't die of inaction, unless that is the intention, as opposed to dying due to missed signals. What, if anything, needs to be done to request uninvolved admin eyeballs, or should we just assume someone is lurking at the Proposal, waiting for it to quiesce, before stepping in? My concern at this point, is that this thread is about to reach #1 position at the top of the page, and then roll off to the archive, I presume.  Given what appears to be some level of consensus at, would other admins assume that you were lead there, and thus defer to you and avoid taking action themselves?  Or, are they just giving it time, and waiting for it to become clear that no other voices are forthcoming on that proposal? Does the proposal thread require a restatement of your "involved" status to alert other admins that you won't step in, so it's up to someone else, if they wish to?  Though hardly new here, it's not quite clear to me how such things are handled procedurally; maybe they're lurking off in the IRC channel talking privately and figuring out what to do?  I really have no idea.  Thanks for all your previous involvement; I think it's helped a great deal in preventing it from going off the rails more than it already has. Mathglot (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Like the two volunteers from the DRN, I am not an admin (as I have clarified in my very first comment reminding OP to notify the claimee by using nacmt; maybe that's being interpreted differently?), so any action being taken on their part is beyond me. At the time I misinterpreted WP:INVOLVED (so I had my close for deferral reverted), and I wasn't aware that DRN would not take open cases from the ANI; my intention was to get everyone involved somewhere else and not require admin attention, for if any action was taken it would not have ended well for at least one of them. If Robert McClenon and Nightenbelle are reading this, I apologise for indirectly dragging you into this mess.
 * I appreciate your attempts to mediate over at the talk page in question Mathglot (as well as DRN people), and as far as archiving goes, I think it won't get archived so long as there is activity in here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As the potential Moderator of the DRN- I just want to be clear- I did not tell to make people stop discussing this ANI case, I just told them that we could not open a DRN case while this was open. This case takes priority, and does not need to be forced to rush. The DRN will still be there whenever this is resolved Nightenbelle (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries. I think they went a bit bold when trying to get this sorted.


 * Support close Let's close this and move to DRN. This has gone long enough that we have to seek some kind of resolution, and the dispute seems to have moved away from one focused on actions and more on the content, though in a fairly accusatory tone that would need mediation. I support closure for the time being, and so does . We can always come back later if this escalates.  Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  00:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't want to confuse an already confused case more, but I have a few comments as another DRN volunteer. First, the rule at DRN is "Comment on content, not contributors".  There is a content dispute about the French Revolution.  However, the filing party, User:021120x, came here with multiple conduct allegations against other editors.  This is now a conduct dispute until the conduct allegations are resolved or withdrawn.  And if this dispute does get reopened at DRN, after resolving or withdrawing all of the conduct allegations, it really will be necessary for all of the editors to be even more careful than usual to avoid commenting on conduct or contributors.  Second, this appears to be a dispute with ten editors.  DRN has difficulty in moderating disputes with large numbers of editors.  The method of dispute resolution that works better than DRN when there are a large number of editors is RFC.  I am sure that a DRN volunteer will be willing to help formulate a neutrally worded RFC.  (I am sure of that because I am willing to formulate the RFC.)  If the filing editor and the other editors really want to have moderated discussion, they can close this case and refile at DRN, and perhaps a volunteer will agree to moderate.  However, I think that this is a case for a Request for Comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Robert McClenon. It would be ideal to continue with the DRN process, however several editors involved refuse to end character attacks in the discussion. Even when the DRN was opened, some editors posted only editor attacks in the thread, in direct violation of the DRN guidelines. Some editors originally expressed acceptance of the present article changes; however, they have since reversed this position and stated that they will not accept such changes in the article, giving evidence that content is not the concern, only the preserving of certain preconceptions. If the DRN proceeds, it will be without the editors that have thus far been incapable of behaving appropriately, despite reminders. This would additionally reduce the concern related to editor count and aid the moderation of the discussion. 021120x (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:021120x - You say that you want to resume or start the DRN process, possibly with a limited set of editors. It isn't entirely clear whether you are saying that they will determine which of them take part in DRN or that you will determine which of them take part in DRN.  If you want to pick and choose who you are discussing with, that is not a way to achieve consensus.  I may have misunderstood something, but you seem to be making matters difficult.  You originally came to WP:ANI with conduct issues, including that another editor was hounding you.  You were asked to provide diffs, and did not provide diffs, and were told that this appears to be a content dispute.  Well, it is partly, but there still are your allegations of conduct, and making allegations about conduct can itself be a conduct issue, as is explained in the boomerang essay.  You say that several editors refuse to end the character attacks.  I haven't seen the character attacks, and so I can't offer an opinion about them other than that I haven't seen the character attacks.  You say that some editors posted only editor attacks in the DRN thread.  Having just reviewed the DRN thread, I do not see the attacks, so that it may be difficult for a moderator to manage a discussion that satisfies you.  I may have misunderstood something, but I have a hard time seeing what will satisfy you, especially since I don't see the attacks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon, a few of the participating editors revised their original posts in the DRN discussion. Wikipedia's policies class the bringing in of accusations regarding perceptions of a Wikipedian's contributions which occurred outside the bounds of the content under discussion, scouring past or historical contributions unrelated to the content, as an example of incivility; yet at least one editor did exactly this. In the talk thread, the posts and tone several editors abound with snide or accusatory remarks, many of which address contributors rather than content. It is impossible to have a productive or objective discussion with such behavior. Further, as above mentioned, certain editors have now undone their acceptance of some changes to the article that were recently brought about under a greater consensus; this is not conducive to a productive discussion in the DRN. Proceeding with the DRN would be best, but it must be held with editors that will behave appropriately. 021120x (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:021120x writes: "Proceeding with the DRN would be best, but it must be held with editors that will behave appropriately."  I have a few questions about that idea.  First, what would the purpose of the DRN be?  What would be gained by spending the time of a volunteer editor, and the participating editors, and the community, in moderated discussion?  Would it establish consensus?  If it excluded certain editors, how would that establish consensus?  Second, who would decide what editors will and will not behave appropriately?  Third, why would you rather have moderated discussion at DRN than an RFC?  Maybe these are all versions of the same question, which has to do with how a limited discussion will establish consensus.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am willing to have this discussion of this dispute closed, but I do not want it closed and sent to DRN unless we agree on what the (possibly unusual) conditions for the DRN would be. Otherwise we can just close this discussion, but only if we agree on how it has been closed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

New Personal Attack by OP
The Original Poster of this thread, User:021120x, has just made a personal attack in an edit summary at French Revolution. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_Revolution&type=revision&diff=983974974&oldid=983974314&diffmode=source It appears that 021120x is, on the one hand, asking to discuss at DRN with a subset of editors, but on the other hand, is edit-warring the lede of the main article. I will note that User:Robinvp11 is trying to discuss the lede at Talk:French Revolution. That's what the article talk page is for, duh. Even if consensus is with you (and there isn't a consensus as to what the consensus is), it is still better to discuss on an article talk page than to use an edit summary to say that another editor is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because a DRN moderator would help to establish a binding consensus. One difficult editor that has recently joined the discussion has already altered consensus decisions which occurred before he began to participate and has expressed a desire to only 'stick to his guns'. Moderation would engender greater respect for the outcome of the discussion. 021120x (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Changes as suggested on October 12 were accepted as being sufficient (with the caveat, perhaps, that they may be supplemented by more details further down). A new user has undone them, going against the discussion. The editor has no interest in following agreed-upon changes. Why is breaking the consensus considered acceptable? 021120x (talk)

One Final DRN Offer
Well, I have advised the OP to use an RFC, and User:Nightenbelle has advised an RFC, but I will make one final offer of DRN moderation, if my moderation will be accepted. (If any of the editors think that I have become non-neutral or involved, they can find another moderator, or they can use an RFC.) However, no participant gets to decide which participants are behaving properly. I am willing to make one final offer of DRN moderation. This offer is open for 24 hours, but only if the editors agree, and only if the editors agree that there will be no participant-imposed preconditions or exclusion of participants. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It appears that a moderated discussion might no longer be necessary, as the position held by editors such as Robinvp11 has recently been shown to be 100% baseless and entirely false. One of the primary authors off of which he and others hinged their argument stated (multiple times) exactly the opposite of what they have been arguing, and the author fully supports the opposing argument. Even direct citations have been included. Any continued contradiction will now stem rather transparently from nothing more than prejudice. The only concern at present is how much more information will be added to the article, and ensuring that such content is respected and unchanged. If this is all that remains to be discussed, I am open to holding a DRN review for it. 021120x (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Still On the Table
I am still willing to try to conduct moderated discussion, until 0300 GMT, 19 Oct 20. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Propose boomerang
While I try to assume good faith, and I abhor confrontation, after the behavior pointed to by Robert McClenon above, I had a closer look at their contribution history. It seems like the behavior of worse than I had realized at first.

From their contributions history, it seems that 021120x is engaging in widespread POV-pushing with pro-American, anti-British views in an attempt to counter the influence of what they call the "Britclique". (See ). Their modus operandi is to inject non-NPOV material directly in the lede, in an attempt to influence the tone of the article.

While the French Revolution incident exemplifies this behavior and has gathered a significant amount of controversy on the injected material, there are at least two additional articles which feature low-intensity edit wars. In these, 021120x injects material in the lede, gets reverted a couple days later and then 021120x adds the content back, often also attacking the user who removed the content.

caracterize the entire subject as a "European-born critique" A statement of origin has no reason to be removed, particularly when the individual insists on doing it anonymously. 021120x (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They are currently involved in a low-intensity edit war on American exceptionalism to caracterize the entire subject as a "European-born critique". This is removed by many different editors at this point, but 021120x persists in edit warring to keep it in the lede. (See , with the last diff also featuring an edit summary that calls another editor disruptive, see below)


 * Another low-intensity edit war is being held on American Revolution, in which 021120x is trying to include a statement in the lede about the United States being the world's first democracy. (See, , ) The last diff here is also calling an editor (me) disruptive.
 * trying to include a statement in the lede about the United States being the world's first democracy A possibly deliberate mis-characterization. Being a pioneer of modern democracy does not equate to being 'the first democracy'. 021120x (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Accusing others of impropriety seems to be a key part of this user's interactions with others on Wikipedia. This ANI thread itself features numerous accusations of wrongful behavior on Robinvp11, which were then retargeted to me when I was tagged in discussion. Another editor which came across the dispute and wanted to give a perspective, Mathglot, was also the target of attacks that are described above. To put it bluntly, almost all people who disagreed with 021120x in this dispute have been accused of wrongdoing by 021120x. The pattern is clear; if you disagree with 021120x in a significant way, they will retaliate by making baseless accusations against you.

He has also many, many other problematic edit summaries, as pointed out above.

(None of the following are vandalism, even if the edit summary states such.)


 * (Undoing revision by persistent anonymous disruptive editor.[...])
 * (Reverting vandalism by "Danloud")
 * . (Reverting vandalism by unregistered user. [...], the "unregistered user" in this case being admin . See User talk:021120x for more information on this accusation.)
 * (Reverting vandalism)
 * (An incontrovertible lie with no reference, no source, no basis in reality or history, no factual support, and intended as a form of denigration.)
 * ( is a disruptive editor who is now arguing that his ignorance of history proves that certain things did not happen.[...])
 * (Reverting edit by disruptive editor.)

In short, this user uses Wikipedia as a battleground, and lashes out at anyone who disagrees with them. As much as it pains me to say, I believe that admin intervention might be necessary. Acebulf (talk &#124; contribs)  21:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a very disingenuous post by a user that is now attempting retaliation for the outcome of the discussion not following a preferred viewpoint (and rather blatantly showcases stalking and hounding). Acebulf claims that he began this search after McClenon's post, which is false. He posted troves of references to activity in the DRN review that had little or nothing at all to do with the content of the discussion, and has confronted me on other pages to which he previously had no direct connection (additionally, he appears to be making anonymous changes on other pages). Acebulf may also be unaware of the difficulties created by Snagemit (many of which are still present). Regardless, as has already been stated, there is no basis for further claims of contradiction in the discussion. At this point, we are only working on what material will be added to the article, and likely what additional details would be added to the American Revolution page. If Acebulf would like to contribute towards this, the discussion is ending on the French Revolution Talk page. Otherwise, the only reason to leave the ANI open would be for administrators to be made aware of users who refuse to work with the added changes. 021120x (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * (And, fyi, 'BritClique' is a jocular phrase that was previously used on the ARW talk page in reference to certain difficult editors that were giving everyone a rough time while we were working on the article. It's an inside joke.) 021120x (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been working with user 021120x with a fair number of other editors and have yet to see anything that warrants him being dragged in here. His "persoanl attacks" amount to nothing more than comments about vandalism and disruption. While a number of editors are currently engaged in a rather heated debate, and at times have made less than friendly comments, including myself, there has been no name calling, threats, etc, made by this user. His comments in edit history are typical among users throughout Wikipedia, especially when there is contentious debate occurring, are not necessarily unfounded, and certainly don't warrant that this user be taken to task here. User 021120x is a relatively new user and has has been ridiculed for being a NewBee with a modest edit-count and has had to deal with his share of not so friendly remarks. (Not by Acebulf) Imo, this case is highly uncalled for and will only serve to widen the gap between the editors in question and discourage a newcomer from  contributing to Wikipedia. If anything, this user only needs to be reminded to be careful about making less than friendly comments in edit history, even if they may be called for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(1) I've stayed out of this, because I find it more useful to work on article content. But the Comment above is an astonishing rewrite of history. The only reason we're here is because user 021120x raised an ANI. I'm still unclear why. I can't comment on other articles, so these apply to the French Revolution; (2) Users who refuse to work with the added changes; on 28 May, User 021120x made extensive changes to the Lede. Without consultation and in variance with the Good Lead guidelines (eg including a block quote in the Lede). As a relatively new user, you might want to check process etc before arbitrarily deciding changes in that way, but we're all different...

(3) As someone who did the French Revolution as part of their history degree, I found the content of the edit surprising and the weight given to it in the lede even more dubious - doesn't make me right, so I did a bit of reading (see the body of the article if you're curious). I updated it on 15 September, then after input from a couple of other editors, changed it on 11 October. The ANI was raised on 12th.

(3) The OP now claims 'its only ever been about recognising the influence of the American Revolution on the French'. Look at the wording provided on 15 September and 11 October; if that were correct, this issue would have been settled a month ago;

(4) When Mathglot removed the paragraph on 12 October, I reversed the edit on the grounds it was subject to dispute, so we needed to wait. Mathglot accepted that change.

(5) Despite being the person who raised the ANI and DRN, the OP edited the paragraph on 17 October, with substantially different wording. When it was reversed, he explained ''Neutral lede was already agreed upon. Discussion is now centered on inclusion of further details. Changes made to lede in previous revision are even less detailed than what was already agreed upon in neutral consensus. Further changes are disruptive.'' As the person who provided the original wording, news to me.

(6) When Mathglot reversed it, the OP reverted again, on the basis ''Mathglot is a disruptive editor who is now arguing his ignorance of history proves that certain things did not happen. Consensus for lede was already established on October 12. Mathglot will be reported to administration.'' If consensus was agreed on 12 October, why was the OP changing it on 17th? (6) I've provided this detail only because we have to take responsibility for our actions; there is a clear pattern throughout the article, this ANI and elsewhere of claiming (a) Edits have been agreed (when they haven't), and (b) accusations of disruptive behaviour when confronted. Every action is a reaction; if you are involved in multiple debates on esoteric points, why do you think that is? You want to waste your own time, fine by me; raising ANIs etc means you waste other people's time, which isn't.

Robinvp11 (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The only reason we're here is because A) users such as yourself maintained an unworkable tone throughout the discussion and refused to accept material that discredited your viewpoint, leading to an impass based on conduct rather than content B) one user who initially clamored for closing this thread decided to instead use it for a retaliatory personal attack to remove an editor who was providing material which contradicted their viewpoint.


 * The ANI was raised on October 9, three days before you claim it was raised. The discussion has always been focused on inspiration and influence, which editors such as yourself have been determined to deny, and only begrudgingly gave a passing and superficial mention of.


 * Mathglot first deleted the paragraph, then entirely re-worded it. You initially did absolutely nothing to change his re-wording.


 * Taking responsibility for one's actions is something you have yet to do. 021120x (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

40,000-foot view
I'm commenting here with fresh eyes, by which I mean that I was pinged, and saw that this discussion is long, and have only scanned it very briefly to see roughly who/what/when, and did not read it. My contribution here now, is to try an offer admins and others a fresh perspective, which I will hope help achieve some context and perspective about what is going on at the article. (I will read this discussion after, and come back if relevant.)

At the top level, this appears to me to be a content dispute about whether the American Revolution can be considered one of the causes of the French Revolution; and if so, to what extent. (At various points in the voluminous TP discussions, the point under dispute has wandered about, and it's been couched differently at times, e.g., "American influence"—e.g., Jefferson or Franklin ⟶ French Revolution; or American documentary influence, e.g., Declaration of Independence/U.S. Constitution ⟶ Declaration of the Rights of Man, but generally it seems to get back to "causes" of the French Revolution, and to what extent American events/people/documents were involved.)

I'm a latecomer to this content dispute at French Revolution; my article contributions involve two reverts of undue material at the article. (Both were undone.) I have contributed more amply at the Talk page. Almost all of my Talk contributions have been in one of two basic roles: My feeling about what's going on at the Talk page is that certain editors are trying to promote discussion, deal with other editors civilly, and reach a proper, policy-based result backed by the preponderance of views by historians; while there are other editors (two to my knowledge; there may be more) who have already made up their minds, and at this point are not interested in working out what the major/minor views of historians are, but rather are interested in seeing that the article matches their views, and that anything else in their view is merely obstruction, censorship, cherry-picking, and bad faith among other editors who disagree.
 * trying to maintain order in the discussion and promote understanding of the relevant policy issues; in my opinion, the entire content dispute hinges on WP:DUEWEIGHT; it appears strongly to me that either the import of this policy is completely missed by certain editors who either misunderstand due weight, or do not agree with it, and hence, there is essentially a disagreement about policy that blocks any possible progress in the content dispute;
 * attempting to help point the way out of a long, circular, unproductive discussion that is going nowhere, by introducing a methodology that could lead to progress towards resolution, where there has been none before: namely, an appeal to tertiary sources to try to reveal what the majority and significant minority views are about the content under dispute. I'm still in the middle of that; it is here (perma) if interested.

A key blocking point, in my opinion, is a misunderstanding of the tension between WP:V and WP:DUE. In some other topic area of the encyclopedia where there are, say, 100 sources, it's not impossible for editors knowledgeable about WP:V to read a good percentage of the sources and get a feeling for what is majority, what is minority, and what is FRINGE, without really knowing too much about WP:DUE, and to come up with a reasonable balance in an article on the topic. However, in an article like French Revolution, this is impossible. A knowledge of WP:DUE is central, and an ability to properly determine and assess the variety of historical opinion on it is crucial. The French Revolution is one of the most studied events in World History, possibly *the* most studied; many hundreds of tomes have been written about it for centuries, and countless articles in historical journals. It is not possible for any one editor to read even a small fraction of it, and to get a feel for the breadth of opinion. Conversely, an editor knowledgeable about WP:V could in good faith find 20 sources to support their (possibly fringe) opinion about some point relating to the Revolution, and not realize that it represented only a very tiny minority in the context of the thousands and thousands of articles written about it. In my opinion, frustrated editors at the article armed with whatever their favorite interpretation is, are falling into this trap by executing targeted searches to find sources to support their view, not realizing (or perhaps not caring) about the massive violation of WP:DUE that this might entail.

By coincidence, I was writing this warning (perma) ) at a User TP of one of the involved parties, when the ping arrived, and now, here I am. It seems possible that I'll need to come back with diffs after reading through this thread; if I'm not back and they seem needed as part of the discussion, don't hesitate to reping. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mathglot's message has since . — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is another blatantly disingenuous post to prevent a certain outcome from the discussion. The discussion is ending, Mathglot. We are now working on how much material to add to the article. 021120x (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it? Then I guess that makes two blatantly disingenuous posts by two different editors, right here in this very discussion; what are the chances? But I do agree with you that *this* discussion is ending.  Which leaves us back at the article talk page talking about content, where consensus is required and no editor gets to decide things by fiat. If that doesn't work, there are always other methods of dispute resolution. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As clearly stated in Wikipedia's policies, consensus does not require unanimity. We already established a consensus, long before you arrived. 021120x (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Admin Guidance
Hello, Admins,

The content discussion is concluded, and we are working on the implementation of the changes. I just want to ask for the admins' direction on how to handle adjustments that may happen further down the line. For example, if an editor several months from now alters material in the article that had previously been addressed in this discussion, is that editor to be referred to an archive of the discussion? Is a new discussion to be held? Is there anything that establishes the changes as binding? Or, would an issue of that sort need to be referred to administration? Are matters of this sort covered by some sort of protections? Thanks. 021120x (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Tenryuu Are you able to answer this question? What are the guidelines regarding respecting changes? Is there a process for maintaining them after a discussion is concluded? 021120x (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For the fourth time, providing WP:DIFFs of what you're talking about will make your life easier. I strongly suggest you thoroughly read WP:CONSENSUS, particularly the bit on tendentious editing. Mathglot has offered their view on the issue and left a on your talk page that  2 hours later.  has  from the 14th onwards and neither  nor  have implied that they decided to agree with your views at Talk:French Revolution (last posts from  and  respectively), so I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that 2 out of 4 majorly involved editors constitutes as having achieved a consensus, let alone the majority. This is starting to inch into "I didn't hear that" territory. I vehemently recommend you take 's offer of the RFC. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the consensus I'm referring to. It does not represent "my view". I did not come up with it. Both Acebulf and Robinvp11 agreed to it. Robinvp11 provided the wording. 021120x (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , your diff leads to an agreement from those two to a proposed wording by, where argued that it [...] touches on "what" but not "how", to which , [...] it is inappropriate to include it in the lede. This was later followed by  that was not addressed. In other words, these are two separate issues. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . The wording of that agreement was implemented in the article and stayed in place until the entire paragraph was deleted by a user new to the discussion. It was subsequently restored by Robinvp11, then changed again by the same user – so, this represents the same issue. However, it is about time to end this thread, regardless. What is the proper procedure to close or withdraw the ANI thread? Any further resolutions will likely only be achieved on the talk page itself. 021120x (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the edit summary on 's states:  which suggests that while they could agree with 's actions, by policy it's best to leave the problem area untouched until the conflict has actually been resolved. Mathglot's  on the 16th takes a difference stance on currently contentious material and has the edit summary:
 * which is most likely from invoking WP:ONUS (in this case, undue until proven due). Link to revision has been provided for easier referral. If I have misrepresented these rationales due to my lack of mind-reading abilities please correct me.
 * What is the proper procedure to close or withdraw the ANI thread? It's highly unlikely this thread will be closed until your behaviour is completely addressed down in . — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Nightenbelle Are you able to offer assistance or guidance with this concern? Are discussions used as precedents for an article? For example, if an editor several months from now alters material in the article that had previously been addressed in a discussion, is that editor to be referred to an archive of the discussion? Is there anything that establishes the changes as binding? 021120x (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:021120x - It does not appear to me, looking at Talk:French Revolution, that there is a consensus on content changes. You may have decided that the discussion is concluded, but I see other editors disagreeing with you.  I would suggest that you read the policy on consensus, which discusses establishing consensus and deals with consensus changing.  However, you do not appear to have established a consensus.  The way that is done, in cases where there is a dispute, and there is a dispute here, is by Request for Comments.  You have been advised from time to time to use a Request for Comments.  I will advise you of that again.  You don't conclude the content discussion simply by saying that it is concluded.  That is done by closure of the RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not deciding anything. The group involved in the discussion already decided on and implemented changes before an individual came along later and first removed, then completely changed them of his own accord, disregarding what we had settled on. I have read those policies, Mr. McClenon, and they clearly state that consensus does not require unanimity. One sole editor is doing nothing but stonewalling and stalling. No one is currently disputing the accuracy of influence having been drawn. 021120x (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the RfC, another user already attempted an RfC (which I have already mentioned to you), and it was not productive. But, we reached an agreement after it concluded. 021120x (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no permanent solution. Any editor at any time may come and revive this discussion with new information, or with a re-examination of the existing information. And if people are still discussing on the talk page- you don't get to decide the conversation is over. Sorry 021120x You are in the wrong here. Go back to the talk page and keep working towards a compramise. I'm not an admin to be clear, just a volunteer. Wikipedia is ever evolving. It would be counter-productive to make permanent decisions about content when the whole point of WP is to create an encyclopedia that can evolve and adjust with new information over time. So I would recomend to go back to the talk page, and keep working with those who are discussing. I also see no consensus currently. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , a consensus was agreed upon on the 12th, then was deleted by a passing user a few days later who had no knowledge of the discussion. The original argument is no longer under dispute, and the new user is simply stonewalling. There are no policies that address such behavior? 021120x (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The new user is not stonewalling..... I read the discussion. There is no consensus- The discussion is not over. I know you want it to be. There are not policies to force a discussion to end because one user wants it to, no. There are policies that require users to continue to discuss until a clear consensus has been reached however. Might I recommend you review those?Nightenbelle (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not the only one who is saying this. 021120x (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not the only one who is saying this. 021120x (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Nor am I the only person saying they are not stonewalling.... and the person who says they are- happens to be the main person who agrees with your POV. If you see above- several others are telling you that there is no concensus... that a discussion is still going on. Two editors arguing that a discussion is not going on.... does not prove a discussion is over! There are comments posted as recently as a few hours ago. Just because a discussion goes quiet for a few hours does not mean it is over- it means that the other editors were busy for a while. You, insisting that a discussion is over while others are actively having said discussion, however, is stonewalling. I'm outta this... moving on to reviewing AFCs... which are woefully backed up for anyone with some free time and wants to see some progress today. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unpleasant Conclusion
When User:021120x stated that the content discussion had been concluded, they were correct, because they switched from discussing content to engaging in article ownership. I think that the community has been very patient with this editor. Some sort of sanction (which will be a boomerang sanction, because they are the Original Poster here) is necessary. Will a short-term block get their attention so that they can discuss when they come off block, or does one administrator or the community have to decide that they are not here constructively? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the basis of this claim of ownership? Multiple editors have stated that they no longer wish to discuss this matter, including myself. If you look at the edit log for the article, Robinvp11 has made nearly all of the most recent edits. I have made almost none. We are all trying to reach a conclusion, and had established a consensus on October 12th (which even Robinvp11 and Acebulf agreed to). See it here. 021120x (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin.... but 100% agree. This user has been agressive, demeaning, dismissive, and rude to almost every other editor discussing the issues on this page. He also is engaging in WP:IDHT and WP:OWN. I truly believe he wants to improve WP, but he seems to have lost the forest for the trees. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not been "agressive, demeaning, dismissive, and rude to almost every other editor". I have only even directly interacted with two or three editors on the talk thread out of about 10 or more, who have themselves been 'aggressive, demeaning, dismissive, and/or rude' – which was the entire reason for this ANI notification. 021120x (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am starting to suspect the OP is guilty of selective reading and tunnel vision at best. Aside from the misinterpretation of to suggest consensus for their position, they appear to have neglected  where she refers to almost every other editor discussing the issues on this page (emphasis added), which would include, calling Acebulf's diff-supplied evidence , and  Robinvp11's first comment here as a blatant lie. They also appear to have misinterpreted about their failure to notify an involved user in this thread according to policy. I like Robert McClenon's proposal below, but if all else fails I suggest a temporary topic ban. I don't think they're WP:NOTHERE because they are contributing to the page in question with sources and impassioned arguments, but I hope a week or so away will give them some time to cool down and stop with the WP:BLUDGEONING. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no foundation for saying that there was a "misinterpretation" (also, as already mentioned, the change did not represent 'my position'. It was a compromise). Even other users openly agreed that the change represented a neutral consensus:


 * Again, there are enough sources out there that can allow us to make a neutral and objective statement as we currently have in the lede. Gwillhickers


 * I'm missing something; what's wrong with the current (sourced) wording? - Robinvp11


 * Aside from the explicit agreement of others.


 * There is also no foundation for stating that any part of Nightenbelle's comment was neglected. She was referring to the article talk page. Further, as has already been posted by a user above, any accusation such as "bludgeoning" is extreme. 021120x (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To quote myself....... "and rude to almost every other editor discussing the issues on this page" I was very clear - i meant THIS page- the one we are on right now. This discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And furthermore- Please understand.... quoting the one user who is passionately on your side- does not dismiss the opinions and assertions of the half dozen or so saying the opposite. You can't cherrypick the opinions that are valid. I am begining to think you really are a troll out to cause disruption... can you really not see that there is a problem with  your  behavior and responses? Not with the validity of your argument- but the manner in which you present it and debate it? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nightenbelle, on the PM you left for me, you gave absolutely no indication that you were referring to the ANI. You explicitly discussed the talk page. Regardless, even in regards to the talk page, another user below as well has stated that he sees absolutely no substance to these claims. "Just reading the above thread, nothing he has written is so terrible as to merit that". There are not a "half dozen" users saying 'the opposite'. There are "three" users who have made it clear that they will disregard anything presented to them. Also, you yourself are ignoring the complaints of their behavior. Multiple users have referred to them as condescending and unwilling to hold an honest discussion on the subject matter. 021120x (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Notice this post from the article talk page:
 * "On several occasions I have offered compromises in terms of covering American involvement in the years leading up to the French Revolution, offering to make well sourced brief statements in appropriate places in the narrative, as is currently reflected in the lede of this article. In every case, after one issue after another is addressed, the goal post, just keeps being pushed back. For example, the original objection was that 'zero' sources support the idea of any American influence. After that assertion was refuted the argument changed, and that only a 'tiny minority' of sources are supportive. After it was shown that many reputable sources cover these things someone came up with the idea that we should only consult Tertiary sources, e.g. general accounts in encyclopedias, ignoring the many dozens of scholarly sources in our Bibliography and elsewhere, and on and on. Now we're at a point where the arguments are repeating themselves. This is not one of those cases where, 'Oh well, it's everyone's fault', which too often is how lengthy disputes are treated unfortunately."
 * There are users that are simply ignoring or disregarding any material that is presented to them. That is the biggest hindrance here. 021120x (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not that bothered about behaviour - we can't sanction everyone on Wikipedia who won't admit error. I do object to the OP continually rewriting history, which they have now done on numerous occasions. Please see their entry on 19 October at 17:08.
 * If you look at the edit log for the article, Robinvp11 has made nearly all of the most recent edits. I have made almost none. Yes, I've worked on the article because that's the best way to challenge my assumptions, rather than just assuming I'm right; tbh, I long since lost track of exactly what it is the OP wants (apart from his own way);
 * We are all trying to reach a conclusion, and had established a consensus on October 12th (which even Robinvp11 and Acebulf agreed to). Even I agreed it? I wrote it!!!, based on input from two other editors; when Mathglot removed it, I reverted the edit explaining it was subject to dispute and Mathglot accepted that change.
 * The person who didn't accept that consensus is the OP, who edited the paragraph on 17 October, with substantially different wording. When it was reversed, he explained Neutral lede was already agreed upon. Discussion is now centered on inclusion of further details. Changes made to lede in previous revision are even less detailed than what was already agreed upon in neutral consensus. Further changes are disruptive. When Mathglot reversed it, the OP reverted again, on the basis Mathglot is a disruptive editor who is now arguing his ignorance of history proves that certain things did not happen. Consensus for lede was already established on October 12. Mathglot will be reported to administration. If consensus was agreed on 12 October, why was the OP changing it on 17th? There is a pattern of behaviour there which is verified by the edit history. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is another misrepresented claim. Mathglot entirely changed the paragraph a second time after he first deleted it, and Robinvp11 initially did nothing at all to correct it. My only comment regarding the paragraph was that it could have used more details, but the reversal I made of Mathglot's edit was even less detailed. 021120x (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is another misrepresented claim No, this can be verified by looking at the edit history. As I believe you've been advised several times, that can't be tampered with.
 * Let's assume you are a ceaseless searcher after truth who has continually sought compromise only to be persecuted first by other editors on the TP, then by the three (or is it four?) volunteers you have dragged into this (and btw You're only volunteers, nobody asked you to waste your time is possibly the most outrageous comment I've seen on Wikipedia). What is it you want? Specifically?
 * If that sounds condescending, I'm tired of pretending I'm talking to an adult and if you want to raise an ANI, please do so. The amount of time and energy wasted because you can't admit you might be in error is disgraceful, and if it were me, I would be thoroughly ashamed of myself. I know you won't be because otherwise we wouldn't be here. I will not comment further - so go ahead, have the last word. I'm a parent, I'm used to it. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My biggest mistake has been attempting to participate in a discussion with several users who have made it plain that they have no interest in holding an honest academic examination. You are the only user here who cannot under any circumstances acknowledge that they have possibly been in the wrong. And, why on Earth would I raise another ANI? 021120x (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

And, why on Earth would I raise another ANI? Well, it does appear to be part of your MO and makes as much sense as anything else on this thread.

You are the only user here who cannot under any circumstances acknowledge they have possibly been in the wrong. I'm not the one being threatened with sanctions, or who's been repeatedly tagged as aggressive, demeaning etc but you may be right. Why don't we honour the founding fathers of modern democracy by polling everyone associated with this thread or the article TP and take a vote on which of us best fits that description? I'm game. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is another user who would agree that there is an issue with ignoring sources, and disagree with any of these accusations. 021120x (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not followed the threads here closely enough to really form an opinion regarding editor courtesy, or the lack thereof. There are two things that Robinvp11 ("Robin") has done, however, that I do find rather disturbing. In an October 6 talk page comment he states that Simon Schama does "not agree" (by the context with American inspiration [AI]). Robin had earlier noted a mention of the American Revolution in Citizens (by Schama), so Robin had some knowledge of that book. But it is not true that Schama disagrees with the AI thesis. As I noted on October 17, on page 24 and 27, of Citizens, Schama is pretty clear that he does support the AI thesis. And here is the thing that I find a bit disturbing - it is so easy to find in that book. Just go to the index, look for "American Revolution" and it is the second page-set noted. Really, Robin just missed that? Oh my goodness, it is so easy to find, how could anyone really miss it? The other, as I've noted on the talk page is that the Rossignol reference does not at all support the sentence Robin uses it to support. It is so far off, not discussing at all sentiments during the F.R., but historiography long afterward. Robin just did not notice that? Hey, as long as I'm weighing in, to me Robin comes across as infuriatingly condescending. That would make a lot of folks loose their cool. So, no, I do not feel that 021120x should get boomeranged here. Just reading the above thread, nothing he has written is so terrible as to merit that. There must be some latitude, here, for an occasional impassioned remark. And editors should be able to call on an administrator without fear of an unwarranted boomerang, perhaps inspired in part by an administrator's weariness in dealing with a contentious issue. Truth is King <small style="color: #7851a9; font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-style: italic">TALK 14:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm referring not to the diff you linked, but on it later, which was  for the lede. As demonstrated above with Nightenbelle's reply, you misread where she was talking about, which makes me worry that you may be misspeaking for others. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  16:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The user shifted his position after Mathglot arrived and encouraged him to reject any changes to the article. He was originally in agreement. 021120x (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The "shift" was done four hours before to the talk page. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The user stated his shift of position at 19:37, which was 1.5 hours after Mathglot proclaimed that he deleted the paragraph, mentioning that he initially felt it was a "responsible compromise". He then changed his position to side with Mathglot. The earlier comment was in reference to the "additional details" that I suggested, not to the wording of the paragraph itself. But, regardless, he was initially in agreement. 021120x (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mathglot boldly edited, got reverted, then discussed. All part of the WP:BRD cycle. Consensus can also change overtime, and it's harder to "nail something down" without something like a formal RFC, which brings us back to square one. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Talk Page discussion was intended to be an RfC, but the user did not realize that he formatted it incorrectly. There is nothing stopping another user from attempting a second RfC. There was common agreement on this change, and, as can be seen, it is currently present on the article page. I followed the discussion for three weeks, then contributed sufficient amounts of sources and argumentation to the matter. Other users can continue to discuss if they see a need. 021120x (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Truth is King I don't have the energy to go through this yet again, but for the first time in this entire discussion, I'm genuinely annoyed. I spent some time on the TP explaining exactly what my interpretation of Schama was, based on reading the whole book, not picking out one page. The clear implication here is that I simply ignored which is infuriating. Next time, I won't bother - save us both time.

(1) The current wording of the Lede is supplied by another editor - if you disagree with it, let me know and I'll take a look.

(2) If you think I've been "infuriatingly condescending", give me an example on my TP (not here) and I'll think about how to address it. On the condescension scale, where would you categorise this as an opening statement; reverting as editor does not know difference between American Revolution and American Revolutionary War?

(3) If you're going to contribute, read the whole thread, so you're commenting on all of it; yes, its pretty long, but do the work, earn the right. Once you've done that, maybe reconsider this comment; And editors should be able to call on an administrator without fear of an unwarranted boomerang, perhaps inspired in part by an administrator's weariness in dealing with a contentious issue.

(4) If you don't want to do any of that, at the very least please stop tagging me so I can avoid getting dragged into a conversation that long since ceased to have any relevance to anyone other than the OP, who has now been given multiple opportunities to stop digging this hole. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, now I'm confused. Where on the talk page is your analysis of Schama? I've looked and I do not see it. I read the whole book, also, even though I only cited to a few pages. The book moves on from the origins to give the details of the action. So, its not addressed again, so far as I remember. But, I do see that it was MJL who brought in the Rossignol reference. So, I apologize for that. As for (3) and (4) — you have a point. I started writing and got a little carried away. I'm just pinging you now so you can direct me to your Schama analysis, in which I would be interested. Truth is King <small style="color: #7851a9; font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-style: italic">TALK 17:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Truth is King My Schama summary is somewhere on the TP in a response to the OP, but I'm sorry, I avoid looking at that because it simply winds me up.

There are two issues; (1) Whether the American Revolution influenced the French; and (2) whether that was so significant it warrants inclusion in the Lede. I've never disputed Point (1); I was neutral on Point (2), although leaning towards a No. That's why this thread is so frustrating, since its not clear what the issue is (I think I know, but its not worth adding fuel to the flames).

While all this has been going on, I've rewritten large chunks of the article (because I wanted to make sure I was presenting a fair picture). Take a look at the sections on Causes and the one further down on 'Creating a new Constitution'; the Ludwikowski article is a pretty good summary (although I don't agree with all of it). Robinvp11 (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

To the Original Poster
I posted this about ten hours ago to Talk:French Revolution, but it was collapsed as not having to do with article improvement. Although I think that this does have to do with the way forward on the article, I am reposting it here: User:021120x - You were the original poster of the ANI thread, and you were the original poster of the DRN thread. So obviously you have thought, at some time in the past, that there was a content dispute, and you have thought, at some time in the past, that there was a conduct dispute. You also referred more than once to personal attacks. You have said that the content discussion was finished, but you asked for administrative guidance about changes to consensus, and you referred to stonewalling. Of all of the editors involved here, you are the one whose positions either are the most variable or are the hardest to define. Now, my suggestion to you, User:021120x, is that you do one of the following three four things: Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Write a draft of what there is agreement about, and ask for buy-in.
 * 2. Write out a set of A-B questions that you want a new RFC on.
 * 3. At ANI, identify what administrative action you want taken against what other editors.  ANI is for administrative action, such as topic-bans or partial blocks.
 * 4. Apologize for having wasted our time, and agree to closure of the ANI, and agree to avoid editing in these areas for a few weeks.
 * Your call.


 * I already responded to this on your user talk page. Here is a repost:


 * Robert McClenon, in response to your post, my preference is to close the ANI and resolve matters on the article talk page. This was always my preference, however this reached point where it would seem difficult to accomplish without external help, which is why I went to the ANI. The ANI directly sent me to the DRN, which began its review, then closed for several stated reasons (too many editors, contributors not pausing TP discussion while the DRN review was in progress, and because the ANI was left open). So, we were sent back to the ANI. One editor originally expressed desire to close the ANI and go back to the DRN, then reversed this position, which is why it remained open. Things appeared to be resolving on the talk page, then the concern of "stonewalling" held by a few editors in regards to one user arose. Despite the frustration, I would still like to keep matters in the Talk Page. It appears that there is no way to establish a discussion outcome as a precedent for the article, even if the discussion goes through the DRN, so just letting the conversation finish its course is my position at this point. Also, I already told the ANI that I would like to close. 021120x (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 021120x (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, Nightenbelle and yourself are volunteers who intentionally chose to get involved. No other users wasted your time. 021120x (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * So... You are not going to do any of the 4- but continue to WP:IDHT and you  asked for help, then when it didn't go your way- you want to close it (I'm going to guess because you are afraid it may result in sanctions against you at this point) and walk away, continue to WP:Bludgeon and WP:OWN an article and its our own fault because we attempted to help you? Just want to make sure I'm completely clear with what you are saying? Wow... Have you looked at the talk page of the FR? You do realize that you do not have consensus there, and it doesn't seem that one is any closer than it was a week ago- but you and your friend are posting walls of text in an attempt to filibuster the issue and get people to give up so you can have your way. Seriously- is this how you think WP should be edited? This is how you think things should work here? *slams head into desk* I just can't anymore. Good luck to you. If you continue editing WP with this attitude.... you're going to need it. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nightenbelle, once again there is no substance to these claims. The only user posting "walls" of text is Mathglot. I'm not the one who prematurely closed the DRN. I explicitly asked the group multiple times to work along with the moderators (yourself). You willingly volunteered to get involved in this discussion. And, what, exactly, is "my way"? 021120x (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that ... I don't think it means what you think it means. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nightenbelle, You have stated several times now that you are "leaving". There is no reason to prolong this discussion. 021120x (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Nightenbelle If you really want to depress yourself, take a look at the American Revolutionary War TP, where some of the same participants are having a similar value-added discussion on who should be included in 'Belligerents'. Thanks for trying to help. As ever, Oscar Wilde comes to the rescue; in response to a complaint from a friend "Oscar, there's a conspiracy against me! What should I do?' 'Join them Arthur.' :) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not doing it. I'm going to just watch quietly until the admins decide how they want to deal with this and I'm going to never, ever, mediate a discussion on the DRN involving these two users. Thats what I'm going to do.... Glad I keep to local history in my editing. I got about half way through a masters in American History.... I think if I saw this debacle on a topic I was passionate about- I would probably get myself in trouble. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: strongly-worded warning
Proposal: an admin statement should be placed on 's Talk page requiring that they scrupulously adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV (and any others that may be deemed necessary), along with a warning that they are under increased scrutiny, and that a continuing pattern of violations of policy or guidelines may be met with a suspension of editing privileges. This editor's disruptive behavior has gone on long enough. I'm not in favor of blocks for a fairly new editor, but on the other hand I fear that doing nothing will be an imprimatur, and cause these disruptive behaviors to be set in stone, or get worse, and we'll just be back here again.

Reasons for this, beyond what has been stated previously by various editors, are as follows:

Beyond battleground behavior on the Talk page, my main problem with 021120x is a lack of a neutral point of view coming in, and bringing the battle to the article in the form of warring and personal attacks. From a content perspective, 021120x's first appearance at the article was on 28 May, with this edit, where he inserted a claim of American influence at the top of the list of causes of the French Revolution, including: "The Americans' victory over the British may have been the 'single greatest impact' on the start French Revolution." In the vast literature of the French Revolution, this is a highly WP:FRINGE view of causes of the French Revolution, as a (still on-going) assessment of tertiary sources demonstrates. Rather than simply looking dispassionately at what the sources reveal as a whole and going from there, his mind appears to have been made up at the outset, and ever since that initial foray at the article, 021120x has battled to try to keep American influence of whatever kind in as prominent a position in the article as the general opposition to his views will allow, brooking no opposition and manifesting that in the article with reverts and personal attacks in the edit summary (as previously linked), and making declarations on the Talk page about when discussions have ended, and what they have decided.

One might think that the range of possible responses to a neutrally worded offer to take the matter to DRN again might be anywhere from "yes" to "no" and points in between, but even that elicited battleground responses (see Talk:French Revolution; perma).

This all has to stop; collaborative discussions to reach a non-predetermined result are imperative, and so is assumption of good faith and civility. Ownership behavior must be avoided.

I have to admit that I'm at wit's end with how to move forward collaboratively at the article with the OP. Pretty much *everything* is a battleground, now, and expressing a different opinion than they is immediately ascribed to some nefarious, shady purpose and shouted down or removed with accusations or personal attacks; neutral offers of DRN are litigated. Hence, this proposal. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, as I have already stated multiple times now, I have no interest in either this discussion or in the FR talk page any longer. You claim that I am turning this into a "battleground", yet I am doing nothing but responding to new accusations that are being endlessly hurled, with all other objections, such as those about your own behavior, being ignored. The perspective you present is both unfounded and inordinately vindictive. And, why you and a couple of others are choosing to prolong this ANI discussion is a question that only you can answer. 021120x (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment about my "mind being made up", it is quite frustrating to see the objections raised about others in the thread, including yourself, now attempt to be projected onto different editors. I didn't even comment in the discussion until it had been going on for three weeks. I already accepted a compromise. You yourself are among the foremost participants who refuse to accept anything that differs from your predetermined perspective, rejecting every bit of material that has been shared with you that differs from your position. There is no purpose in continuing to participate in a discussion when participants do such things. 021120x (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been my experience that the most effective way to stop talking about something is to stop talking about it. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support the proposal by Mathglot for a strongly worded formal warning. I will note that I still or again don't know how User:021120x wants to end this ANI thread.
 * In the section headed To the Original Poster, 021120x writes: "my preference is to close the ANI and resolve matters on the article talk page."
 * In response to Mathglot, 021120x writes: "I have no interest in either this discussion or in the FR talk page any longer."
 * So once again, 021120x is shifting their position in a way that makes resolution difficult, which makes a warning necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The only thing making resolution difficult is the insistence on persisting in this thread. "Just letting the conversation take its course is my position at this point". That isn't clear? I have shifted nothing. I have no interest in trying to have an honest discussion with people who are determined to prevent any changes that contradict their biases, and who it now quite plainly seems will stop at nothing to achieve this. The conversation can continue until it comes to its close. If someone wants to attempt a second RFC, they can go right ahead. I will not invest more energy into this. This thread can be closed.021120x (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Due to the endless redirections and continual attempts to WP:OWN even on this page. User does not seem to understand etiquette among editors. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Not sure I get a vote but this is not a one-off; if the OP could be persuaded to redirect the energy spent on this thread towards actually working on article content, it would help Wikipedia. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reject Multiple users have already stated both in this thread and on the talk page that such accusations are entirely unwarranted. This proposal is itself an example of a WP:BUNGEE. Mathglot has repeatedly engaged in violations of Ownership and stonewalling, and did not begin his criticisms in this thread until another one of his efforts at stonewalling was thwarted. Other users have engaged in various forms of WP:Harassment and uncivil behavior, including but not limited to endless condescension and contributor attacks such as tu quoque. Several of the users that have posted above are not even involved in the content discussion. They are currently engaging in baseless bullying while ignoring complaints against their own conduct or that of other editors, and refusing to adjust or even acknowledge their own actions, and have lost sight of the discussion as a whole. I have already stated that: I am not interested in continuing to participate in the FR discussion, yet they have persisted in prolonging this thread. I recently engaged in a with another user regarding a change on a page which we both peacefully agreed to. He was not determined to 'stick to his guns' at all costs. 021120x (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * uninvolved non-admin Support I've gone through this whole thread and WP:IDHT seems to be a real concern. Also, 021120x, I don't think voting on the sanctions that are to be applied to you a) looks very good or b) carries much weight.  M r A urelius R   Talk! 20:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help to have familiarity with the talk page, and you seem to have overlooked those who disagree. 021120x (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. After reading a few more comments from the OP here I'll finish the rest of what I had not wanted to say earlier: the OP is guilty of selective reading and tunnel vision at best, and deliberately twisting other people's words and bludgeoning others in a battle of attrition at worst. They bungeed down to the ANI with their complaint and were surprised when it was snapped back with evidence pointing to their behaviour and the thread shifted to examining their conduct (also known as "being unable to put the genie back in the bottle"). Had they been more apologetic and recanted some of their asserted claims ( as an example ), I would have been more inclined to suggest maybe having them get adopted by a WP:MENTOR to make sure they aren't getting into bad habits like WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. Unless their attitude and behaviour improve, I would not be surprised to see them at the ANI noticeboard again from an incident at another article. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The original "complaint" was that the discussion was going nowhere for non-content related reasons. At such an impass, users are instructed to make use of forums such as the ANI. I have never done this before and did not know the "complaint" would be taken less seriously for not having an assortment of "diffs". We were directed to the DRN, the volunteer looked over the case, and sent us back. One user suggested that this thread be closed and we go back to the DRN. There were no behavioral differences, so I did not see a point in doing this. We continued on the talk page until a point was reached where none of the original content objections held ground, and a user simply resorted to stonewalling. So, it seemed that things had worked out on the talk page, with no need for external intervention. But one user then changed positions and decided to use this forum for a misconstrued personal attack. The thread was left open to continue what was little more than an attempt to remove a user that was providing sources that disproved a certain viewpoint. That is why this was prolonged. 021120x (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "especially this one which is demonstrably false"., Nightenbelle left a PM on my talk page in which she explicitly referred to the article as "that page"; her only reference to the ANI was that a complaint about "that page" was brought to the ANI. The statement is not false - or, if she truly was referring only to the ANI thread, it honestly was not seen; to paraphrase , it is impossible to read minds. Also, you earlier gave another user the benefit of the doubt in referring to comments with a harsh tone as simply . A flurry of targeted allegations is not enough to elicit 'expressions of frustration'? 021120x (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The user that you're talking about has not demonstrated a "harsh tone" from a sample I picked at random out of his editing history, nor was he the one who tried to collapse something that was considered "not directly related to article improvement".
 * Nightenbelle left a PM on my talk page in which she explicitly referred to the article as "that page" [...] Sure, but that wasn't what you were originally talking about. You specifically and directly quoted (and I truly am sorry to notify her for this, but her comments are being manipulated and I think she should be informed as such) to  that you have not been "agressive [sic], demeaning, dismissive, and rude to almost every other editor", typo and all. There is no way that either one of you don't know how to spell "aggressive", as in the same comment you follow up with I have only even directly interacted with two or three editors on the talk thread out of about 10 or more, who have themselves been 'aggressive, demeaning, dismissive, and/or rude'—emphasis mine, and  that Nightenbelle left on your talk page (which had subsequently ) mentioned: I'm not saying you are the only one being aggressive and rude on that page [...]—emphasis mine. Said message also doesn't carry the string that you quoted. What's more, her "PM" was posted to your talk page at 18:00 UTC, 19 October 2020, while  was posted here at 17:51 of the same day. Your statement preceded hers by 9 minutes, which chronologically makes no sense when you say you referred to her comment that occurred in your statement's relative future.
 * Yes, I (and let's not mince words here, you can say ) said that I have a lack of mind-reading abilities, which is why I rarely ever call someone a liar. The evidence I have given above, however, should attest to the fact that (and attempt of misdirection as a shoddy attempt to double down and refuse to apologise) is demonstrably false and provide credence to the position that your behaviour is troubling, and dare I say, disruptive. I strongly suggest you also personally apologise to Nightenbelle because that is absolutely unacceptable conduct on here. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tenryuu, you're missing the point. The fact that she referred only to the talk page on the message she left nine minutes later underscored that this was likely the only thing she had in mind during that interaction, and that there's no reason to harangue someone for seeing it as such. Now you're accusing me of twisting someone's words? Multiple users have expressed issue with Robinvp11's tone. And you accuse others of suffering from "tunnel vision" and "selective reading"? 021120x (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you're accusing me of twisting someone's words? Yep, because (unless you're accusing her of lying) she has (on here, the ANI) contrary to your claim:  Emphasis in original. She quoted herself from, said statement occurring before she even went to post on your talk page, though by all means, quote her deleted message on your talk page in its entirety here (the ANI) for everyone to compare. If she meant to, on here (the ANI), refer to Talk:French Revolution vaguely, she would've originally said "that page", not "this page", because "this page" would mean WP:ANI. Incidentally, it is possible to be "aggressive and rude" in multiple places. Obviously, the only one who can decide what Nightenbelle meant is Nightenbelle herself, and if she feels like clarifying this point of contention she is more than welcome to.
 * Multiple users have expressed issues with Robinvp11's tone. Diffs please.
 * And you accuse other of suffering from "tunnel vision" and "selective reading"? I know that was a jibe made at me, but for the record, I do, specifically at you. I was originally neutral to the claim at first, but observing your behaviour here (the ANI) (and elsewhere) changed my stance. I'm in awe of the mental gymnastics performed to reach such outrageous conclusions. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tenryuu, you are twisting facts. She didn't say "I meant this page" until a day after she posted on the talk page (19th and 20th, respectively). And Truth is King 24 said even in this thread that he found Robinvp11 "infuriatingly condescending", as well as expressing other grievances about him. But, selective reading and looking for reasons to demonize someone probably make it difficult to find that. 021120x (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My behavior elsewhere? Following the appropriate procedures for reporting, which are stated at the top of this very page? Yes, that's quite terrible. 021120x (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again (I think it's the sixth time now?), diffs make it easier to find and confirm what people say. If Truth is King 24 has the diffs they're welcome to submit them here, though I notice they have started (originally ) that Robinvp11.
 * [...] twisting facts. How so? I specifically said, which occurred before she even went to post on your talk page. The main object was not . If you would like me to explain my grammar and sentence structure to everyone (not that I think it's necessary), I shall happily oblige so that everyone understands 100%. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * [...] selective reading and looking for reasons to demonize someone probably make it difficult to find that. I'll take that to mean you're running out of arguments, which hopefully means a decision can be made sooner. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement you quoted occurred 21 hours after the post was made . Your usage of it above is entirely misapplied. It is a twisting of facts.
 * Regarding Truth Is King 24, asking the other person to find the diffs for this very thread – a page that one claims to have read but it appears has not, is rather low. He wrote a.
 * Regarding "running out of arguments", I'm only responding to these inaccurate and seemingly endless assertions. Perhaps they should stop being raised. 021120x (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your usage of it above is entirely misapplied. It is a twisting of facts. How so? I find it easier to believe that she kept her quoted content on here (the ANI), offered you a different message on your talk page, took a break, then clarified that you misunderstood what she said here (the ANI), rather than her covering up for whatever flub she made. People are allowed to take breaks from commenting. Convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that Nightenbelle recanted.
 * What I said was if has the diffs (implied to mean Robinvp11's activities elsewhere, but I shall clarify here), they're welcome to supply them. Of course, they admit that have not followed the thread closely enough to really form an opinion regarding editor courtesy, which is what we're here for.
 * inaccurate and seemingly endless assertions [...] Please prove the former (or have the person in question explain everything) while I take this time to appreciate the irony of the latter. At this point I shall attempt WP:DFTT as much as I can. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ’’’comment’’’ op has now posted a wp:boomerang and on me for edit warring after I reverted a change on the talk page of this article twice when they and her user tried to hide comments of another drn volunteer suggesting how they could move forward productively. Two reversions is not an edit war. I have no intention of reverting a third time making it one. Nightenbelle (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (Adjusted link to anchor to resolved case) — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  01:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Behavior is out of control. I don't think it will do much to curb the behavior, but we can try. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  23:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Question for the Original Poster
Well, I guess I have another question for the Original Poster, User:021120x, but maybe I am only summarizing a lot of the responses on this board and at Talk:French Revolution and elsewhere. You are complaining that you are being harassed and bullied. What editor or editors are you saying are treating you unfairly? If it is one or two editors, then perhaps you can name them, and perhaps either something can be done, or you and the Wikipedia community can agree to disagree as to whether you are being wronged. If, however, you think that you are being wronged by a large number of editors, then why are you still here? If you think that the Wikipedia community is mistreating you and is being unfair to you, then why don't you find a more reasonable virtual community? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , I rarely have negative experiences within the Wikipedia community (actually, only one comes to mind). The nature of this discussion (the article discussion) seems to have elicited certain emotional responses from the participants, which manifest themselves in an unreasoning stubbornness not seen in most other areas. I have only felt directly wronged by two editors (Robinvp11 and Acebulf), for reasons which have been touched on above. However, the reason for coming here was to take the initiative in moving the discussion out of an impass. To reference an earlier comment:

"'The only reason we're here is because A) users such as yourself maintained an unworkable tone throughout the discussion and refused to accept material that discredited your viewpoint, leading to an impass based on conduct rather than content.'"
 * Lacing interactions with both subtle and direct ad hominem, including a frequent reliance on tu quoque, does not encourage discussion (although Robinvp11 apparently believes that ). Other editors have as well stated that he has been "infuriatingly condescending". He also seems to have taken a view of ownership, making himself solely responsible for nearly all of the article's wording and changes. And I believe that some of the commenters above lack insight into the matter, and are possibly showing a degree of groupthink.


 * Regardless, this is the only forum I was aware of. I had never before heard of the "DRN". I complied with the instructions and encouraged the group to do the same. I watched the discussion for three weeks, then contributed material. There is no longer a need to add more material to the discussion if a handful of the editors are committed to disregarding it. 021120x (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This encapsulates the whole problem. I have never seen this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia before; at what point do you stop blaming everyone else and maybe ask what should I do to prevent this happening again? That's the issue.


 * Yet again, the OP has manipulated reality. I have not participated in the FR Talk Page discussion, except to suggest maybe everyone needs to back off.


 * Yes, I've been working on the article; I've now invited comments three times. No one has, probably because they're spending all their energy dealing with this rubbish.


 * Other editors have as well stated that he has been "infuriatingly condescending". Actually one editor; I asked for feedback to see what I might do differently rather than whining about how nobody understands me. I won't speak for him but once he looked at the entire thread....


 * And even if I was the most condescending b@#$ alive, would that justify the stream of abuse and constant self-justification that has absorbed so much energy? If I had driven three separate administrators to recommend that I be sanctioned, I might be at least curious. I find that genuinely astonishing;


 * And I believe that some of the commenters above lack insight into the matter, and are possibly showing a degree of groupthink. This has been the issue all along ie anyone who disagrees lacks insight


 * ...don't know what ad hominem means Again, if that's considered sufficient grounds then you're going to spend a lot of time on these boards. And read your own TP (the version before you deleted it); I'm not the first person to suggest that.


 * You've been told several times that deleting entries doesn't delete the history; ergo sanitising your TP doesn't work and is not recommended because it can affect how people see you. So look through the entries on your TP; the very first on 28 May (ie the day you started) has 'Welcome but...', then the extremely conciliatory post from Acebulf on 7 September etc. Or the friendly note from Mathglot you deleted. Whenever people have tried to compromise or advise you, its been shoved back down their throats. This isn't interpretation; its all there in the edit history.


 * You will respond with a long self-justifying list of all the reasons why this is wrong or unfair, so this genuinely is my final contribution. But if it were me, I'd be thoroughly ashamed of myself. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Robinvp11, will you give it a rest already. 021120x (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

User: 76.85.70.60
This user has harassed me and another user, vandalized and broke 3RR. Needs a block of at least 72 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

In case you losers didn't realize, I have virtually unlimited IPs where that one came from. Check the history of Quarantine and Freedom of movement. Losers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.134.62 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know! We'll be on the lookout. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Would that all socks were so obliging! Nosebagbear (talk)
 * Quarantine and Freedom of movement are currently semiprotected, but only for a couple of days. If the "losers" IP continues to vandalize them after those protections expire, it'll be time for longer semis. I'll try to keep an eye out. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC).
 * I am sure they will make an effort to let everybody know they are vandalizing articles. After I have semiprotected Quarantine yesterday, they twice posted at my user talk page saying that I am a loser because I do not let them to continue vandalize.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He posted to my talk page saying that I was a loser. So I brought it here. Blocks should be at least 48 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The guy definitely loves the word "loser" and has since revealed he uses "IPSharkk.com" using another Ip. He's also vandalized housing alot. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the guy definitely loves the word "loser" – Could be Trump. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 07:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's true, it would be absolutely YUGE news!  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All IPSharkk.com 's IPs should be blocked for being the same as open proxies. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * at some point we need to file a WP: LTA for him. Singing off for the night. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose per WP:DENY. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  01:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know about WP: DENY, but this clearly needs tracking. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's on prison now. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly sounds like a LTA but who is the LTA using the IP address Dq209 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Block 108.32.50.49 ASAP -GoatLordServant (Talk)  14:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We could always make a new LTA, the loser vandal. This does seem like an LTA. The question is who? Or we could make a new LTA. This clearly is gonna be a problem for a while. Anyone making an LTA should link to this. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest a filter for this behaviour, with DatBot reporting filter triggers to AIV. Might be one of our older IP vandals, but identifying one specifically is a pointless fishing expedition in my opinion, and the time which would otherwise be used for this can be put to some other use.  Java Hurricane  06:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will put up a repository of his common edit summaries and phrases when I have time, but for a start perhaps let the filter detect the word loser from ips and report it to aiv. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 10:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What am I even doing at this point? Is what I have in my sandbox usable or salvageable? -GoatLordServant (Talk) 11:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is now on Health Department -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If anything, IP addresses, linked by their contributions, are the most useful thing to collate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We need to see how this goes. The vandal might have stopped. In that case, we can archive this section. I reported the abuse to IPSharkk. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

LTA?
I strongly think this might be an LTA. It might be an IPSharkk vandal, we can always report abuse to IPSharkk or whatever it's called. I don't say we file for LTA, but we make a note of IP's used. They are likely open proxies. I suggest we convert current blocks/make new blocks that are hardblocks for 6 months. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of these blocks could be extended, but they're mostly fairly dynamic so protection is going to be more useful. I think IPSharkk might actually have a response department, if you do wish to contact them. Personally I haven't come across evidence that IPSharkk is actually being used. However I do think it's no coincidence that 99.247.195.218 and 24.85.226.201 were previously used by Blue Barette Bam. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it might be an open proxy. If that's the case, then they need to be blocked for months. And this could easily be a proxy. Try geolocating. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt they're open proxies. I'm just commenting on the appropriate length. Most will be entirely gone within a few days. Others not of course.. those are the interesting ones.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could the LTA be Blue Barette Bam? or is it a different LTA 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * how about maybe we block them for 1 week hardblock? He seems to not use the IPs after block, rather cycle through them. 12 hours might be enough. Then again....we definitely need to get IPSharkk involved. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(merging section named "Range block of IP-hopping vandal" as it's about the same IP) Isabelle 🔔 20:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone - over the past half hour or so I've been constantly having to revert an IP-hopping vandal on an assortment of different disease-related articles and I was wondering if there was a common range between the IPs, and if so, if it could be temporarily blocked. Here are the IPs they've used so far: User:73.85.202.178, User:66.158.213.197, User:108.215.70.164, User:71.238.143.181, User:72.76.174.204, User:24.130.9.49, User:24.128.106.154, User:187.152.120.49, and User:24.128.106.154. Cheers! — Chevvin 18:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Add User:75.83.182.59 to the list too... — Chevvin 18:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could someone do a REVDEL on the edits too?Citing (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And another User:68.251.96.213. Vandal claims that he's bored during quarantine. Look out for his "Loser" statement. Transcendental (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Having dealt with Blue Barrette Bam IP socks earlier this year, I believe that the behaviour of these socks is consistent with that of the older socks of Blue Barrette Bam.  Java Hurricane  03:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's the same old behaviour from April-May - using IP socks to post attacks on the TFA. It's Blue Barrette Bam.  Java Hurricane  03:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * JavaHurricane is right - see Connie Glynn's revision history. I think there are more IPs that may need blocking in Prison. Pahunkat (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Blue Barette Bam claims that they will stop if they test negative on their next COVID-19 test. I still would keep an eye out on their edits. Goose ( Talk! ) 00:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Appears to now be vandalizing Nasopharyngeal swab Pahunkat (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is the potential lta tag no longer in use? That thing was amazing. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 12:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is one of only few times. Why did the discussion become stale,is a better question? --98.116.128.15 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , looks like modified it as a result of this discussion at the help desk. <span style="background: -webkit-radial-gradient(red, blue); -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent;">Dylsss(talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 17:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, but dang it! I was using it to track Blue Barette Bam! I believe his "famous" quotes were added to the filter and I could see where Bam went. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

User KIENGIR is putting words into my mouth, what can I do?
Hi, I have a dispute with user KIENGIR for a while [], so far the discussion was very unproductive so I asked for a 3rd opinion. He makes accusations, when I give him a reply, he makes the same accusation, when I make the same reply he accuses me of "repetition", despite being merely the same reply to the same accusations he keeps making. The moment he loses the argument, he starts switching to ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation, then I spend more time debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself, with the conversation leading nowhere. He has often misinterpreted me in the past, but this time he went one step forward. In the RFC posted above, the said twice that I said something I in fact did not say: [] and []. He argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it.

When in fact, I did no such thing. I wrote a reply with diffs explaining that I in fact did not: when I asked him for a source - [] and when he replied not providing a source - []. He then posted one of his diffs as "evidence" that I indeed agreed with him - []. Where it stands to common sense, that if you accuse me that I said X, you should provide a diff where I said X, not a diff where you say that I said X. He then moved the goalpost, saying it was about an older source not this one, despite his original "funny you start to deny again I provided a source" being a direct reply to my "you failed to provide any source for that 10% claim", and the RFC being about this one.

Now he insists in a bravado that "the fact that you acknowledged later I provided a source on the matter, is openly readable at the page", despite that not being the case. If that was the case, he could have easily posted a diff with my post, just like he posted a diff with his post. He is unable to provide diffs where I supposedly said what he claims I have said, because I in fact said no such thing. He is trying to lie that I said something I did not say to make me lose credibility in front of the RFC. I understand cases of misinterpretation either deliberate or by mistake, but this is completly another level, he is putting words into my mouth. What can I do? LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Relevant links: Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have not notified the user KIENGIR on their talk page (as the banner said when you edited the page). I have placed this notice for you. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, thank you! LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG, .(KIENGIR (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC))
 * And I have to add, the user again reiterated the casting aspersion what he was blocked for "He is trying to lie", other diffs are present in the one I already gave. It's enough also to check the his talk page, multiple warnings from admins, and the other talk pages encountered, bullying everybody, administrators, users , etc. lately he copy-pasting other user's comments and reflecting/inverting them, inlcuding WP policies and warnings others told him , this goes all along WP:TE, WP:LISTEN, more editors tried to always with extreme patience care about the user, but in the end all of us are wrong and evil, shall they be users or administrators (and I could present gazzilionths of other diffs for the aforementioned, but it would just tire all the community). Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR, I couldn't help noticing that, although you claim various things about LordRogalDorn, not a single one of your links is to a diff of something LordRogalDorn wrote. Would you please be so kind as to back up your descriptions of what another editor did with diffs showing the behavior described? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - the first link I gave (the user copy pasted here what he wrote there contains the casting aspersion, which I highlighted. The prevoius block log you may check on the user's talk page and additional comments and links (in the first unblock request another editor became a "liar" around 4 times, in next around 9 times. After you see an extensive WP:NOTTHEM, milestones far from the reality.
 * - the next other link directly shows conversation with others, including his posts
 * - if you wish to see evidence for the copy-paste accusation attitudes, see talk of Hungarian irredentism, History of Transylvania, Origin of the Romanians, and lately very intesively in the already incited Hungary in World War II articles (and don't get scared, because you will meet an impossible walloftext, although more of us tried to shorten aswers ar far as possible...)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
 * No need to ping me. When I comment on a page it is on my watchlist. Also, I have not yet formed an opinion on which one of to is in the right. To do that, I need to look at the evidence, hence my request that you provide diffs. I have purposely not looked at LordRogalDorn's diffs because I don't want to see just one side of the story, but if your next response does not contain diffs with LordRogalDorn's signature I will have to assume that you have no evidence to back up your claims. Again, none of this assumes that LordRogalDorn has a case. I haven't looked at the evidence yet so I have no opinion on that yet.
 * No, I am not going to read through an entire section that you link to. Either provide a diff with LordRogalDorn's name on it or it didn't happen. I know how to access the context, but first I need to see a diff. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, but because you are not willing to see the diffs and evidence I provided (now you outlined you wish to see diffs with his signature), it does not mean your assumption is valid, because you just outlined you won't read an entire section, so in fact I work instead of you. But no problem, I'll pick of every issue one short demonstrative sample. A moment.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I have to mention, last time, user KIENGIR deliberately misinterpreted a source and I knew that he knew it was a misinterpretation because we discussed that source. So I called him out for it. He told and admin and I got temporarily blocked for accusing another user of lying. In the appeal, I attempted to prove with diffs that he was genuinely and undoubtedly lying, but the admin declined my appeal because it was too long and he was not going to read all that. I understand this, as I could have been more succint. I also understand that my comment regardless of truthfulness or evidence was unhelpful and unnecessary, I could and should have only sticked to proving the arguments of the other person wrong without any accusations about the person itself. But this is a completly different level, it's not a deliberate misinterpretation of a source, but a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing.
 * The diffs he brings up as "evidence" that I'm a bully are rather ironic. I was new to Wikipedia and tried to add something to an article. Another user opposed and we had a discussion. He stopped talking for 2 days saying something like "I'm done" at the end. I took this as leaving the discussion, so 2 days later I reverted the edit. Got temporary blocked for that edit. I believed it was unfair so I talked to the admin who blocked me, turns out, I should have menitoned that I'm undoing that page in the absence of explicit opposition, which I didn't, so he was right to block me. He said that this is not a judgment on my merits, but only on the edit revert, so I can come back and continue the discussion after that. But I considered it's not worth it so I dropped it. A few days later, another user took my old edits and reposted them, the same user opposed him again, he quoted a part of the policy and turns out he was right, so my original edits remained part of the article in a funny way. I had the right information, but didn't know the Wikipedia method.
 * The "but in the end all of us are wrong and evil" is really only user KIENGIR. He is trying to make it look like he's the majority somehow. But nobody else told me this. Beside other things that he refers to as "we". He only cherry picked a few that I previously explained, there are no gazzilionths.
 * Anyway, this is what I meant about him going for ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation, then I spend more time debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself. As Guy Macon pointed out, he claimed a lot of things about me, but did not present a single diff where I said what he claims that I said. This is a reccuring theme for him, with making accusations and his evidence being "it's self-evident" or "you can just read above", being as vague as possible so he won't have to back up his declarations. You can probably see how defending myself is redundant at this point, as he can make accusations on a conveyor belt, which is why I hope you don't mind if I only defend myself when the admin tells me to defend myself in order to avoid future walls of text and not get too much off-topic. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this is what I meant about him going for ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation, then I spend more time debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself. As Guy Macon pointed out, he claimed a lot of things about me, but did not present a single diff where I said what he claims that I said. This is a reccuring theme for him, with making accusations and his evidence being "it's self-evident" or "you can just read above", being as vague as possible so he won't have to back up his declarations. You can probably see how defending myself is redundant at this point, as he can make accusations on a conveyor belt, which is why I hope you don't mind if I only defend myself when the admin tells me to defend myself in order to avoid future walls of text and not get too much off-topic. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

For Guy Macon's request: On the exact issue here, sampled from here ([]) The user told I did not provide a source in the article's talk, , also at AN3 , (just a few samples from the many, the last diff - again a boomerang report, even contain the lying casting aspersions and reptititvely that I did not provide a source, etc.), although it has been always there. After the admin warned him, after he acknowledged I provided a source (highlight, "yes you provided a source". Now, one month later, at another talk when I was referring back to this evidence, he responded  (highlight, "Again misleading and fallacious argumentation, I provided 2 sources while you provided nothing. (...) although this issue has been already discussed and demonstrated nearly 1 month ago (WP:LISTEN)" (in this you see also evidence for the copy-paste issue, since the second part of the sentence is what I directly told him before).

So after I faced him it is not a good thing after recurrent denial that I provided the source he again starts to deny it, although by admin pressure he finally acknowlegded I did....after, again in a counter-accusative rant he again denied I provided a source, but foxily he cited in diffs from another recent discussion, in which he claimed a source (which anyway I don't have to provide since we have them already and that's all just about the user's fallacious interpretation), but it was unrelated to the discussion 1 month ago.

So now we have this boomerang report, when the user in a very lame way tries to coin the community and in fact he does what he is accusing me (despite I told him with experienced and diff-issue check-willing - huh, to even get through of those specified diff's walloftexts' - editors/admins he has no chance.

For further casting aspersions, see or  (just search on the word lie) or  previously this, but there would be much more. Guy, I hope you are satisfied and catched the issue.

(disclaimer, I just noticed meanwhile composing this, the user already put a long something, I will review it only now, may be the answer will built into this composition)(KIENGIR (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
 * ADDENDUM on the user's new "demonstration":
 * - "attempted to prove with diffs that he was genuinely and undoubtedly lying" -> WP:NOTTHEM, the user did not understand/acknowledge why he was blocked for, and now again uses this argumentation as an excuse, however I never lied, but it does not matter
 * - "but a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing" -> Sorry, to say that, epic fail as just here, recurrently
 * - "He is trying to make it look like he's the majority somehow. But nobody else told me this." -> (Highlight -> "Three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days")
 * - "so my original edits remained part of the article in a funny way" -> It will be reviewed, as the perpetrator seem to be an IP generic following the same argumentation as the user, while another IP which appears to be a sock anyway was just blocked for 6 months.
 * - "The "but in the end all of us are wrong and evil" is really only user KIENGIR." -> yes, maybe I am the devil incarnate.


 * I really sorry I have to spend so much time with obvious issues and not happy editing, in the aforementioned pages in every (half?) year we encounter some very tendentious and enthusastic trolls which are consuming our precius time, but our patience are almost unlimited.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Please, read the whole text from the diff provided by user KIENGIR in order to avoid cherry picking, [[]: "You provided a source, but it is not a source that counters my original source. The only source you provided only further proves the 1941 census is misleading without the mention of mass immigration.". He provided a source. Not a source relevant on the subject at hand. We were talking back then, as well as right here, about the 1940 censuses. For those, I have provided 2 sources, while he provided no source.
 * Admin pressure? wtf? Please, provide a diff where the admin pressured me to acknowledge your so called source. About his "highlight", is again a poor attempt to mislead by taking things out of context: it was part of that funny discussion. There were no three editors who tried to explain me a basic rule for days, and the admin acknowledged there were no 3 editors, but nonetheless he temorarly blocked me for reverting edits. I would like to ask a simple question to his out of context accusation: If 3 editors tried to explain me a basic rule for days, how come the guy who came after me to restore my edits explained 1 single rule, turns out he was right and my original edits were restored? There are 2 possibilties: (a) the 3 editors were wrong (b) there were no 3 editors. Go ahead and review them out of WP:REVENGE if that is what you wish, I don't think you will have any luck with it as the user who restored my edits quoted Wikipedia's policy simply and succintly: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". As for the other user who was blocked for 6 months, how is he relevant to our discussion? LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

My analysis of the the diffs KIENGIR just provided:

First link: Diff to something written by KIENGIR. Ignored.

Second link: Confirmed that LordRogalDorn asked for a source on 23:39, 11 September 2020

Looking at the context (the entire page as it existed at that time is easily accesses by clicking on the "Revision as of 23:39, 11 September 2020Revision as of 23:39, 11 September 2020" link at the top), I see that it was preceded by

"Can you list the sources of the official agreements and mass return for verification? -- posted by LordRogalDorn 11:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Surprising you enter into issues you don't know exactly, although they are widely known by those who analyzed the subject. E.g. [1] --posted KIENGIR at 15:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

With a link to "A történelem tanúi - Erdély - bevonulás 1940 p 56. - The witnesses of history - Transylvania - Entry 1940 p. 56. - ISBN 978-963-251-473-4"

(I have no idea at this point whether that ref contains "the sources of the official agreements and mass return for verification", but no doubt someone will quote the exact words.)

Third link: confirmed that 12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDornrote:

"It's impossible to gain consensus with a non-cooperative user who won't offer verificaiton for his concerns but at the same time is against edits whose sources have been listed. ... Since you are either unwilling or unable to back up your counter-claims with evidence, your concerns are not legitimate for they are based on empty words alone. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Fourth link. Did not read. It's an edit warring report, I am not investigating edit warring at this time, and KIENGIR has already established that LordRogalDornrote asked for a source. Moving on in hope of seeing the answer.

Fifth link: In KIENGIR wrote about the "1930 Romanian census" and the "1941 Hungarian census" arguing that both should have been included.

So it appears that there is a disagreement as to what sources to use, and that there are sources for two censuses. but is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? I invite LordRogalDornrote at this point to describe exactly what he is asking for a source to. Please do so calmly, factually, and with zero added personal comments. We already know your opinions about each other.

Sixth link: The claims "the admin warned him" is misleading. The result of the edit warring report was:


 * "Result: Both parties have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. This is clearly a nationalist topic. If anyone is hoping to get support from admins, please make your talk page posts understandable. If you find that you can't reach agreement, use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is risky to charge that another editor is lying. User:LordRogalDorn, as a new editor, might be cautious when reverting on nationalist topics that have been the scene of past disputes. There does not have to be any time pressure on Wikipedia when we are trying to get the events of 1940 described correctly. If usability of sources is in question, WP:RSN is available."

Seventh link: confirmed that at 15:00, 13 September 2020 LordRogalDorn wrote

"You provided a source, but it is not a source that counters my original source. The only source you provided only further proves the 1941 census is misleading without the mention of mass immigration. Which you didn't do. We already talked about this but you won't listen. The 1930 and 1941 censuses were real, but so were the 1940 one. So why use the 1930 and 1941 ones when the 1940 are available and more accurate since the Second Vienna Award happened in 1940."

I stopped there. My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source. It is clearly a disagreement about which sources to use.

I am not seeing anything here that requires sanctions, and I recommend closing this ANI case. I advise both KIENGIR and LordRogalDorn to completely stop saying anything about the other editor (clearly doing that isn't working out for either of you), that you make all of your reposes way shorter, and that you each hake your point and then shut up rather than a lengthy back-and-forth where you repeat the same points.

I recommend a NEUTRALLY WORDED inquiry an the reliable sources noticeboard about what censuses the include and how much WP:WEIGHT to gave to each of them. On the RS noticeboard, you should both do your best to imitate emotionless robots who are only capable of discussing facts and figures.

Basically I am asking you both to figure out how to stop fighting and start cooperating. It actually is possible to have strong disagreements about article content yet treat each other with respect and dignity. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For the user's reaction:
 * - There is no cherrypicking, I told in advance the collection is not complete, just fulfilled what Guy asked, just becase you declared something about the source which just your own sepculation and you keep telling I did not provide a source does not change the fact I provided even more.


 * - "Please, provide a diff where the admin pressured" -> The link is inside the diff above, only after this admin warnings you finally declared I provided a source, whilst denying it before around 5 times
 * -""highlight", is again a poor attempt" -> it was a help to Guy to guide through huge walloftext, nothing misleading on them, meet the facts
 * - it is fact the three editors explained you something, it is linked as well above and traceable in the relevant talk pages, why do you think you denying evidence will lead to somewhere? Again you expect some editors/admins will not check them?
 * - There is not any WP:REVENGE, you are the one who is making reports and abusing other editors
 * - "how is he relevant to our discussion?" -> you mentioned that case

- - - - -
 * For Guy:
 * - What you wrote in brackets, yes contains
 * - "12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDorn wrote" -> denial again of the fact I provided a source, with other invalid speculations
 * - fourth diff you chose not to read, (highlight) -> "such as refusing to provide sources" (so again denying I provided a source)
 * - Fifth link -> I provided further source
 * -""census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"" -> no, not the same things, on the other hand on this issue the user did not ask futher source since then, the current issue here that he started to deny again what I have already provided, etc., as I detailed more upwards
 * - not it is not misleading, read it properly, you mistaken something:
 * "LordRogalDorn, if the disputes reported here continue it is likely there will be some admin action. I recommend that you have patience when working on these topics. This is a difficult area. Thank you,"


 * -7th link and your comments -> I basically agree with your summarization, however, but what is after the user's "You provided a source..." comment, it is just the user's inaccurate speculation which has been already demonstrated (the problem was he was denying this and hence the whole convesation about this occured)


 * -I restricted myself to the shortest anwers possible, but when the users denying reality and I present earlier evidence of the opposite, it is nothing ad hominem, but if someone is consenstently denying the existence of diffs how else should it be demonstrated? If you have noticed, the whole discussions are about the user is denying reality, and making inverted/counter accusations towards others, while mostly never acknowledging any mistake he did, but continuing casting aspersions. Dispute reolutions are ongoing, the sources we have, the problem is the user tries to draw or invent things which are in fact not represented or related or even said, and the issues are mainly is not about which source to use primarily, but the user's problematic, self-invented assertions.


 * "cooperating, respect and dignity" -> A basic rule of our community, which to the other user should follow, since I've spent a horrible amount of time of caring about him with extreme patience, explaining him, but I did not get any appreciation, just tendentious and disruptive accusations, casting aspersions, etc. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and at a point if user refuses evidence and the existence of diffs and tries to respond with manipulative denial, it cannot always continue like that.


 * Summa summarum, besides all of these, I disagree with you on no sactioning, the reiterated casting aspersions about "lying" has to have a consequence (recidivious), along with this boomerang report when I was again accused about something I did not do, however the opposite happened. It's very annoying.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC))


 * Comment thank you for taking the time to look into this, and I agree this content dispute should be closed without action.  even after looking at your diffs and reading your complaints, it's difficult for an outsider to understand what this argument is about. In the future, I'd suggest that you provide a short description of the content dispute so that uninvolved editors can provide their advice. Based on these two recent diffs, I assume the conflict might be summarized as follows:
 * Is that accurate? Please correct me if I'm wrong. If you both can contextualize these disputes, other editors can more easily help you. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A "census" is not the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return". The former is about the 1940s censues, the latter is about what happened between 1940 and the 1941 census. When we started our discussion, I originally made this claim []. He asked for verification [] and I provided verification [], while also mentioning the oddity of the 1941 census as a separate issue. The questionability of the 1941 census does not confirm in infirm the 1940s censues, they are separated issues with separated soruces. He did provide a source for the mass return of Hungarians after Northern Transylvania became part of Hungary, the one you mentioned and the one I confirmed here []. But no source for his refusal to accept my sources for the 1940s censuses, as I mentioned in the same comment []. Where I acknowledged his source about the mass migration of Hungarians (another subject) and was then asking him for a source on the 1940s censues (the subject where he claimed I acknowledged his source, but I didn't). As I suppose it stands to common sense that if you want to contradict a scholarly source you should do so with another scholarly source, not personal opinion or OR. Which he did not provide to this day.
 * In our recent discussion [], the subject was the 1940s censues, not the 1941 census (notice the flow of the discussion: "the earlier mentioned (official censuses) don't have the percentages oscillate near 50%. We have the 1940 censues which clearly states: 48% Romanian and 38% Hungarian according to the Hungarian census, and 50% Romanian and 37% Hungarian according to the Romanian census, see the connection to Hitchins" followed by "you identify estimations as censuses", this is clearly a discussion about the 1940s censuses). For which he provided no source, but said more than once that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it.
 * Concerning the 1941 census with the "the official agreements and mass return", it's worth pointing out that not only the source he provided, but also his own words [] speak of the Hungarians that returned after 2nd Vienna Award, a fact that he now denies and does not wish to be mentioned in the article next to the 1941 census.
 * It is not a disagreement about which sources to use, because we have 2 separate issues: the validity of the 1940s censues, and the Hungarian migration between 1940 and 1941 leading to completly different numbers in the 1941 census. He provided a source for the latter, but provided no source for the former. Yet he insists that he provided a source for the former and I acknowledged it. In the discussion we have here, he misleadingly used my diff when I acknowledged his source about the mass return, to make it seem like I acknowledged his source about 1940s population.
 * It is not a disagreement about which sources to use, because we have 2 separate issues: the validity of the 1940s censues, and the Hungarian migration between 1940 and 1941 leading to completly different numbers in the 1941 census. He provided a source for the latter, but provided no source for the former. Yet he insists that he provided a source for the former and I acknowledged it. In the discussion we have here, he misleadingly used my diff when I acknowledged his source about the mass return, to make it seem like I acknowledged his source about 1940s population.


 * Edit: replying to Darouet as well. As you can probably see, the argument goes deep. But here specifically is about that fact that user KIENGIR put words into my mouth. He said twice that I said something I in fact did not say. He argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it. In summary: We were talking in an RFC about the validity of saying in the article that Northern Transylvania in 1940 was "divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians", because according to the sources I provided, it was not even. While he said: [] and [] that not only he provided sources in support of this, but I acknowledged them. My issue here is specifically about the fact he insisted I said something I did not say. In his defense, user KIENGIR pointed out to this diff [] where I acknowledged he provided a source. But in that diff, I acknowledged he provided a source on a different subject, not on the subject we were discussing in the RFC.
 * I never denied that he did not provide sources in his life. I denied that he provided a source and denied that I acknowledged it on the subject we were discussing at that moment in the RFC.
 * I disagree that the dispute should be closed without action because at the end of the day, he did claim I said something I in fact did not say, even after I clearly told him I did not say it. But I understand that this is not an issue about the deeper argument, if we could call it that. And for that I agree with your summarized version for content dispute, where is the best place to place it? LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

, Thank you for your comment (however why do you think recidivious casting aspersions are ok?).

Any outsider will deal hardly with this issue, since as you see, over 70% of the disputes and page content is about the user's misinterpretations and accusations (where you are not even sure if you provide or incite/explain evidence, will have an effect but continous denial you meet)

Short description of the content dispute is something hard, the one who is interested sadly has to crawl through the conversation, on the other hand I am not sure the content issue should be imported here, because the result may be again 80 km long copy-paste walloftext, which we are all fed up, dispute resolution is already ongoing in the respective pages, keep them there.

In fact, you grabbed the cutting edge diffs appropriately, however your summarization is a bit broader of the current issue (and it is about not necesarily nationalist narratives). Very shortly, the user wishes to add POV and misleading content, as well insist a Romanian majority in fact we don't know exactly what was then, but what we know the population was etnnically mixed, divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians (other side-by edits of him which I don't detail now are on similar problematic patterns). At one page there is short summary without data and after another section census data, at the other just a short summary reference cited with a link. In my edit I added the Romanian census next to the Hungarian census, thus I fulfilled the neutrality part, the user disputed the significant Romanian population remark above (I don't detail the very astonishing (?) argumentation on the talk about this), but I already proposed to write instead ethnically mixed. In the other page, since the summarization is short, does not take sides and vast details are out of scope, I don't see a reason to change. These issues are already handled by an RFC, in fact from small, flea issues an elephant have been created.

(disclaimer, now I noticed the user posted something, will review now and update)(KIENGIR (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I appreciate that you both are rightfully upset about behavior. It seems to me that this dispute has gotten overly personal. I'd suggest that you take a deep breath and focus on the issue of scholarship. One possible resolution to the conflict is to describe how historians disagree on the ethnic composition of these territories, and to describe the historical and geopolitical implications of opposing viewpoints. -Darouet (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * UPDATE:
 * UPDATE:


 * unfortunately the user's recent post is just what I was concerning, importing copy-paste partially outdated issues here. The user reiterated the identical WP:LISTEN issue I draw the attention, which was one month ago, the denial of again I did provided a source is false, since I did (diffs above, acknowledged by Guy the claim and accusation has been false). The user funnily is again saying I am putting words in his mouth, of course not. Blatant boomerang, as he again comes up with a diff which was a response to the root issue of this report; claiming I did not provide source 1 month ago (which I did) has nothing to with a recent issue (claiming a source for a recent issue where we have in fact sources; the lame trial of explaining out his failed accusation, that is an impossible contradiction, just reaffirming the invalidity of this report). So he starts again...


 * Darouet it is not a mutual issue as you describe, I concentrate on the facts, while demonstrating the other users manipulative accusations has nothing to do with personal issues (just explained). I am the victim of this, and the issue is apparently obvious, amazing he tired again the same trick. Really boring (and in front of the whole community, and proof again he is not willing to acknowlegde anything, despite the evidence shown and even reviewed by others. So, WP:LISTEN, WP:TE, etc.).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC))


 * Comment: This is basically a heated content dispute between good faith editors; this is an issue for an RfC or DRN, not ANI. Since I think both editors are trying to act in good faith, I think Guy's statement above is the best advice, "Basically I am asking you both to figure out how to stop fighting and start cooperating. It actually is possible to have strong disagreements about article content yet treat each other with respect and dignity." I'd add both editors should refrain from using the word "lying"; even if it is true, it is most often counterproductive to resolving a dispute. Comment on content, not contributors is sage counsel we all should heed. I propose closing this as not the appropriate forum. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  18:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think you did not read well the issues, unfortunately the other editor does not practise good faith, please read the evidence entirely. I never used the phrase lying towards him, while he did around 22 times accumulated, to more editors, even after sanctioned for this. I think anyone who gives a comment should entirely read the details, the good faith approach in normal circumstances the dispute between two editors would just an overheat would be understandable, but the evidence is hardly striking, even repetitevely (even on this report). If the user won't learn from this issue, he will just continue casting aspersions and manipulative accusations, without acknowledging anything, as it has been so far (while he sees other users barely will check all the details of the walloftext because of time, so better will likely take neutral stance).
 * Hi, I think you did not read well the issues, unfortunately the other editor does not practise good faith, please read the evidence entirely. I never used the phrase lying towards him, while he did around 22 times accumulated, to more editors, even after sanctioned for this. I think anyone who gives a comment should entirely read the details, the good faith approach in normal circumstances the dispute between two editors would just an overheat would be understandable, but the evidence is hardly striking, even repetitevely (even on this report). If the user won't learn from this issue, he will just continue casting aspersions and manipulative accusations, without acknowledging anything, as it has been so far (while he sees other users barely will check all the details of the walloftext because of time, so better will likely take neutral stance).


 * Please reiterate Guy's summarization:


 * "My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source" -> in other words, the report was a boomerang, useless waste of time.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC))


 * Reply:, Your comment above about me, is an example of what is not helpful. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  18:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate you, but without appropriate investigation was not really helpful to insist on both editors what is in fact a problem of one.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
 * To be clear - your accusation that I am commenting before having read and thought about the issue is an example of what is not helpful. It is insulting and especially irritating after having spent time reading walls of text. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  18:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I never said you would commenting before having read and thought about the issue, I said entirely read the details. However, even if you read through everything, then you could not conclude what you concluded. I appreciate and respect your efforts, but not seeing what I have drawn the attention is problem, especially when I am recurrently insulted and accused, though the counter-evidence have been already presented. I hope you understand me.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Funny how user KIENGIR complains about "outdated issues here" when the original discussion is 1 month old and he previously brought up here an old discussion I had on another page, not related to him or this discussion, only to discredit me. Where those not "outdated issues"? In the same comment, Guy asked whether is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? And invited me to describe exactly what I was asking for a source for. I replied that no and explained above that I was asking KIENGIR for a counter-source to justify his denial of the 1940s censues. In his reply, user KIENGIR is again trying to move the goalpost from the 1940s censues discussion, to the 1941 mass migration. Because he did provide a source for the 1941 mass migration, but not for the 1940s censues. And the reason I made this complain is that he argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it, for the 1940s censues; [ and the reply []. In the first comments in this discussion, he spammed accusation after accusation, now he claims he is the victim of this.
 * In the meanwhile, user KIENGIR made a reply. I would like to remind him that in the same comment Guy said ""My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source"", he also said: but is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? I invite LordRogalDornrote at this point to describe exactly what he is asking for a source to. Which I did now.


 * Also, please check the conversation after the diff [] that he uses as "evidence" that I acknowledged his source in our recent discussion. Where I acknowledged his source about the mass migration of Hungarians (another subject) and was then asking him for a source on the 1940s censues (the subject where he claimed I acknowledged his source, but I didn't). He replied [] "It's not about countering a source, on the other hand you should drop that fallacious assertion that 1941 census would biased" and I replied that [] "If you don't have a source that counters my original source, then on what grounds you disagree with the 1940 censuses? and why you consider that disagreement valid? as in, justify your personal opinion with facts". I hope this shows I was asking him for a 1940s censuses source. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Reply:, I would read my comment above and then quietly let this close without any further comment. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now at least the community see the inverted copy-paste accusations, as this user tries to operate with the same trick which has been already debunked at by the demonstration of "03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC))", reinforced by Guy's summarization. Even citing in Guy's other remark, which is not related to main issue of this report, but was a question, indeed answered and yes, for that has been also provided a source, even linked here, heh). This user seem never acknowledge what he did wrong, but enthusiatically continues the same style. Now at least here it is reinforced as well, pity....(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
 * If "indeed answered and yes, for that has been also provided a source, even linked here, heh", can you then please repost the link of the diff where you also provided a source for the 1940s census, and I acknowledged it? Just as you said I did on the RFC[] page? You say there is a link here, but I haven't seen any.


 * To TimothyBlue, I appreciate that you took the time to read this huge wall of text to understand the matter, I can see it's not an easy task. However, from experience, I can tell editor KIENGIR is not acting in good faith, as evidence, his attempt to put words into my mouth in an RFC discussion. User KIENGIR's defense was moving the goal post, taking out of context a comment where I acknowledged another source not related the subject at hand. It is the equivalent of we talking about Disney+ and him posting a diff where I acknowledged he provided a source on Cartoon Network as evidence that I acknowledged he provided a source Disney+.
 * I came here at the recommendation of an admin, as I don't know what is the best place for this issue. But at least in this particular discussion, I am not reporting about the vailidity of his claims or my claims in our debate. I reported solely the fact that he said I did something that I didn't do. We can discuss the vailidity of his claims and my claims on other pages, this is only for his attempt to put words in my mouth. I have made serveral attempts to stop fighting and start cooperating, but please just count the number of accusations from each user and see who's the one to make more. The point I'm trying to make, is that, although I would like to and tried to on occasion, it's difficult when the other user spams ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation on a a conveyor belt. He is talking more about me than about the subject at hand.
 * I also understand that the word "lying" is most of the time counter-productive, but this is not a deliberate misinterpretation of a source, it's a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing. When I knew that clearly I didn't say what he said I did, but he inisted upon it, what was I to do? Anyway, I'm not willing to continue this wall of text discussion of mostly off-topic things if this is what you fear, I wished to keep this short too, I only replied for admin Guy as he asked me to, as replying to every one of KIENGIR's accusation would ressult in even more wall of texts and off-topic, so I will only do it at the request of the admin. Admin Guy will likely come back and look at my response, as I replied his question and explained why the other user's defense is misleading. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I am not intending to play your games further, when you try to desperately escape by rendering lengthy discussions and deteriorations from the subject. Above there is everything, your denial and competence issues are not my problem, and also others asked this thread should not be continued. Regardless what evidence you'll face, you'll just continue and try to turn the world outside of it's four corners. This is the last time a provide you a diff for a content issues which does not belong here (and already posted here anyway, which proves there was no census in 1940 (and I never had to provide anything for something that did not happen), anyway your new foxy inventions to create new claims of sources/acknowlegdement will not help you to escape from this serious boomerang issue.

Your last walloftext blurb of yours just reinforce everything I said, you just can't stop this behavior ("Cartoon Network", "Disney+", amazing (!)

If you continue further an administrator should block you without further warning for failing WP:LISTEN, WP:TE and the other disruptive behavior you just reinforced here. Enough, I am done here.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
 * The diff you provided as evidence that you also provided a source for the 1940s census, and I acknowledged it [] has some problems: (1) Its your diff, not my diff, it stands to common sense, that if you accuse me that I said X, you should provide a diff where I said X, not one of your diffs. (2) Your source is off-topic, I was not talking about the 1930 census whose ressults were published later. In fact, if you look, you will notice that the numbers from the 1930 and 1940 census are different. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , even if LordRogalDorn is lying, be the bigger man. Concentrate on the issues, not the person with an alternative viewpoint. As has been said, it is possible to have diametrically opposed views to another editor over an issue, but still be respectful of them and their right to express their view. There have been good suggestions in this thread re resolving the issue keeping WP:NPOV in mind. Stating both sides of the issue and letting the reader decide is a good way to go. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * here's some info/advice: first, just so you're not under any misapprehensions, not everyone commenting here is an admin (I'm not); the editors who have commented here so far who are admin are Dreamy Jazz and Mjroots. (Admin highlighter helps distinguish.)
 * Second, there comes a time when you've tried to work things out with another editor and you're just hitting a brick wall. You have reached that point in this dispute. Just forget about that editor; you don't need to convince every single editor here that your edit is an improvement. You need consensus, not unanimity. So just work the content dispute resolution system, instead of trying to convince one particular editor. You asked: "When I knew that clearly I didn't say what he said I did, but he inisted upon it, what was I to do?" Ignore it, that's what.
 * Third, go make the edit you want to make, whatever it is. If it's reverted, don't reinstate it or edit war. Instead, go to the talk page and start an WP:RFC proposing the edit (or if it's not a matter of one edit, proposing whatever it is you want to propose). Make the RFC question short (like one sentence if possible) and neutral (like "Should this edit made" with a link to the diff of the edit that was reverted), and then post a !vote, "Support as proposer..." with your reasons. Let anyone who wants to oppose, oppose, including Kiengir. Don't respond to Kiengir no matter what they write in that RFC. Let other editors voice their opinions, discuss it with them if need be, but don't WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and basically let the RFC take its course and decide the outcome of the content dispute. While the RFC is running, go work on something else. If you make another edit elsewhere that is also reverted, repeat this procedure for each such edit. (Except try not to launch too many RFCs at the same time.) If you decide to follow this and have questions about formatting or whatever, feel free to ask on my talk page. Lev!vich 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Lev!vich. Let me be blunt. Both parties have been asked by several people to stop saying things about each other. If either of you continues this behavior, even if the person described is as evil as you say and even if everything you say is 100% true, it is extremely likely that an administrator will simply WP:TOPICBAN you because you have shown that you are unable to control yourself. It won't be me that topic bans you -- I am an ordinary editor, not an administrator -- but if I see further personal comments I may end up recommending such a topic ban. Consider this to be a golden opportunity; if you suddenly start acting like an emotionless robot who only (and briefly!) talks about the issues at hand without saying anything bad about the other person and they keep trashing you, chances are that any sanctions will be one-way. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Third, go make the edit you want to make, whatever it is. If it's reverted, don't reinstate it or edit war. Instead, go to the talk page and start an WP:RFC proposing the edit (or if it's not a matter of one edit, proposing whatever it is you want to propose). Make the RFC question short (like one sentence if possible) and neutral (like "Should this edit made" with a link to the diff of the edit that was reverted), and then post a !vote, "Support as proposer..." with your reasons. Let anyone who wants to oppose, oppose, including Kiengir. Don't respond to Kiengir no matter what they write in that RFC. Let other editors voice their opinions, discuss it with them if need be, but don't WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and basically let the RFC take its course and decide the outcome of the content dispute. While the RFC is running, go work on something else. If you make another edit elsewhere that is also reverted, repeat this procedure for each such edit. (Except try not to launch too many RFCs at the same time.) If you decide to follow this and have questions about formatting or whatever, feel free to ask on my talk page. Lev!vich 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Lev!vich. Let me be blunt. Both parties have been asked by several people to stop saying things about each other. If either of you continues this behavior, even if the person described is as evil as you say and even if everything you say is 100% true, it is extremely likely that an administrator will simply WP:TOPICBAN you because you have shown that you are unable to control yourself. It won't be me that topic bans you -- I am an ordinary editor, not an administrator -- but if I see further personal comments I may end up recommending such a topic ban. Consider this to be a golden opportunity; if you suddenly start acting like an emotionless robot who only (and briefly!) talks about the issues at hand without saying anything bad about the other person and they keep trashing you, chances are that any sanctions will be one-way. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Continued disruption
I just looked at the edit history of both of the above users after they got the above advice:

KIENGIR:


 * 22:14, 16 October: This single edit contained a fair amount of saying bad things about LordRogalDorn, but this was less than an hour after the comments advising them to stop doing that, and they may have not read the advice yet. I checked the entire history after that without finding any comments about LordRogalDorn other than asking me to look into this.

LordRogalDorn:


 * 07:14, 17 October 2020 : "The other user is taking sides by attempting to go for a middle ground logical fallacy... not only this is OR, but sometimes halfway between truth and a lie, is still a lie. He tries to hide his POV by claiming the NPOV version is POV."
 * 07:59, 17 October 2020: "This discussion was already over when the other user started making the same fallacious arguments that were already discussed and disproved in the other page. I'm aware it's impossible to reason with him due to lack of WP:COMPETENCE and failure to WP:LISTEN. When he made the same accusations he repeatedly makes on other pages, dispite substantial evidence of the opposite being clear for everyone to see, I merely gave him the same reply. Once that was done, there was no reason to play his game of off-topic mirror accusations. "

I would also note that LordRogalDorn is now in a fight with Borsoka:

My recommendations:

It appears that KIENGIR is capable of disengaging and no longer posting personal comments, but LordRogalDorn is not capable of disengaging and no longer posting personal comments. So I recommend: --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) A topic ban for LordRogalDorn from the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed.
 * 2) A caution issued to KIENGIR saying that we appreciate him disengaging and that we expect him to continue talking about content and not about other editors.


 * And now LordRogalDorn is removing the comments of other editors who he is in a content dispute with:
 * I am not the only one to notice. EdJohnston wrote:
 * "It appears to me that User:LordRogalDorn isn't going to stop, and is not receptive to advice. In the above, he seems to be insisting that anything which is sourced can be included in Wikipedia, making no assessment of whether a primary source from the 16th century is a good source for what actually happened in history. Trying persuasion at this point seems unlikely to work. It could be time for a longer block or a topic ban under WP:ARBEE, since they are already alerted to the sanctions."
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Defending the clear WP:TPOC violation by arguing that the rules don't apply to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The other user, KIENGIR, made the diff you posted [] after the discussion above. And your argument was that it was less than an hour after the comments advising them to stop doing that, and they may have not read the advice yet. But in my case, the comments you posted were made the following morning, yet in my case you did not consider whether I may have not read the advice yet.
 * My first [] diff, except for the POV part, contains nothing personal about KIENGIR. There is truly no peer reviewed RS which states their numbers was "near equal". And to argue that because the census before that showed one thing, and the census after that showed another, then the correct ressult must be the middle between the two censuses is indeed the Middle Ground Logical Fallacy, it's not a personal attack, it's merely stating logic.
 * While the discussion with Borsoka had no personal attacks and was a disagreement on Wikipedia's policy.
 * You could of course argue that after that comment [] user KIENGIR stopped making any personal comments, but the same is true for me [] when I saw that he has stopped making them.
 * And the reason I attempted to remove the comments [] was already stated here [] and here []: "the reason why I wish to remove that wall of text is that it only makes it more confusing for users to understand what is actually going on, and the presence of the huge wall of text will likely discourage anyone from joining the conversation. So far, we have no votes on the matter and the ressult is inconclusive". I understand now that it's not allowed, but the reason I made it was not to distort information or something similar that could be implied.
 * My argument here [] was not that the rules don't apply to me. In fact, if you read the whole diff, you can see that I never said or implied that "the rules don't apply to me". If you read the whole diff, you'll find that at the end of it I looked for an alternative way of doing this, removing the huge wall of text without destroying previously made comments. LordRogalDorn (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Two different things. I and others advised you and KIENGIR to stop trashing each other and in fact to stop talking about each other entirely. This is about you violating WP:TPOC by deleting KIENGIR's comments. And now you are searching for "an alternative way" to violate WP:TPOC by deleting KIENGIR's comments. It isn't your place to decide what comments made by the person you are in a fight with should be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For the first thing: As mentioned above, I did stop. I didn't stop immediately after you posted the comment, and neither did KIENGIR. In his case, you argued that he may have not read the advice yet. In my case, you didn't even consider that. It was not a comment about him, it was a comment about your judgment based on which you made the recommendations.
 * For the second thing: You can interpret the last part as "searching for an alternative way to violate WP:TPOC by deleting KIENGIR's comments" or "searching for an alternative way to remove the huge wall of text without deleting other people's comments", it's entierly up to the reader's interpretation. But if you look at the context (ie: I only removed the comments of us trash talking each other and kept the ones where actual arguments were made, I started the comment on the diff with "you are right that other editor's comments shouldn't be removed", and perhaps the most obvious: I clearly declared my intentions and reason for doing this on WP:TEAHOUSE when I asked this question, which was done before I removed the answers) I believe one interpretation has more weight than the other. I broke WP:TPOC by removing other people's comments, my mistake, but after I realised that I broke WP:TPOC I didn't do it again and for sure I wasn't looking for "alternative ways to violate WP:TPOC", what would even be the point of that? LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. You were "searching for an alternative way to remove the huge wall of text [that contains other people's comments] without deleting other people's comments." Thanks for explaining that. You still don't see the problem with removing a "wall of text" that just happens, by an amazing coincidence, to contain comments by the person you are in a fight with. Yes, KIENGIR does get wordy. So do you. How would you feel if KIENGIR decided that your comments were "a wall of text" and deleted them? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would've got it, you wouldn't be sarcastic about it. Consider this: "you are right that other editor's comments shouldn't be removed", what do you think, do I see or still not see the problem? If you really look at it, you'll see that I didn't delete only KIENGIR as you keep saying, I deleted the whole conversation, that means my comments as well. And I didn't delete the most recent comments of both of us, so the conversation could keep going. I know now that you're not allowed to, but since you asked: If KIENGIR would delete the comments of us exclusively accusing each other while keeping the ones where arguments were made, I will be fine with it. There are ways to remove wall of texts without deleting the comments, such as achieves or an apendics sub-section, maybe others too, but I don't know whether either or those are allowed on Wikipedia, so I asked. Is that so hard to understand? LordRogalDorn (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And once again, we see the problem that LordRogalDorn is incapable of seeing. Consider the sentence "If KIENGIR would delete the comments of us exclusively accusing each other while keeping the ones where arguments were made, I will be fine with it". That would be against Wikipedia's policies. The only situation where you could delete all of the comments accusing each other would be if you have the express permission of everyone who's comments are to be deleted, and even then the actual selection and deletion really should be done by uninvolved third party, not by one of the editors involved in the fight. Deleting your own comments does not give you permission to delete other editor's comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - You asked me how I would feel, not whether or not it's against Wikipedia's policy. I replied how I would feel, and you use that as evidence for what? That I'm "incapable of seeing it's against Wikipedia policy"? It's not like I said "I know now that you're not allowed to, but since you asked" in the comment you just replied to. But let's ignore all that because it doesn't lead to the conclusion you want. From the start of this conversation, my point about the deletion of comments was that I haven't done it to distort information or break rules (in bad faith), I didn't do it again (as I realised it was against the rules) and for I wasn't looking for "alternative ways to violate WP:TPOC". Not that the deletion of comments was right. I think I was pretty clear on this. So why you lecture me on something I already acknowledged in previous comments that I did wrong and that I shouldn't have done, what are you trying to prove with this?
 * - Wikipedia has this principle of assuming good faith WP:AFG, I don't think you have lived up to that, though maybe not intentionally. In the diff about which you said it means "searching for an alternative way to violate WP:TPOC", there are 2 possible interpretations entierly up to the reader. I understand if you were uncertain "it could be this, or could be that". But you jumped straight for the bad faith version. Just like in the other talk you found an excuse for KIENGIR, but not for me, despite the same excuse you found for him being equally valid for me. In his case, you argued that he may have not read the advice yet. In my case, you didn't even consider that. It's a matter of judgment based on personal belief and opinion about me, not based on evidence, equal treatment or presumption of innocence. In this talk, after you jumped directly for the bad faith version, I told you about the context. Even with the context, you still insist on the bad faith version. And despite how many times I told you that what I did was wrong, you still try to frame me as being incapable of seeing I was wrong. Your judgement doesn't seem exactly impartial, and I'm not saying that as a personal attack or criticism, it's just something for you to consider.
 * - On your accusation of bad faith, let's throw the presumption of innocence WP:AFG and context []. [] out of the window:
 * Consider this sentence: "You are right that stealing is wrong, but I need to find a way to get food for my familiy, do you have an alternative way of doing this?", is the person in question asking for an alternative way of stealing or an alternative way of getting food? The whole point of "stealing" was "getting food for my family", that was the goal. So it's likely the person is asking for alternative ways to meet their goals.
 * Now consider the same person is asking this the cop who just caught him stealing. Which one of them is more likely? Is that person seriously asking the cop for advice on new ways to steal?
 * Replace "stealing" with "removing other people's comments", "getting food of my family" with "removing the wall of text", and you have my case.
 * Not to mention that, how difficult can it be to find other ways to steal? or in my case, how difficult can it be to find other ways to break WP:TPOC? if that's what I wanted to do.
 * - I know "removing the wall of text" is not exactly like "getting food of my family", but neither is "removing other people's comments" like "stealing", the point I'm trying to make is about semantics. I know that no matter what I say won't believe me, which is why I'm not asking you to take my word for it, just to base your judgement on evidence, equal treatment and presumption of innocence. Not to do me any favor but because that's how a fair judgement is supposed to be. But to be honest, given the above I feel like the sentence was already set and my long text of wall here is useless. Why am I even wasting time? So go ahead and ban because "I clearly showed I continued the personal attacks with KIENGIR while he probably didn't read the advice yet", "I am incapable of seeing what I did wrong and won't listen", and not only that I still can't see what I did wrong, but "I argued that the rules don't apply to me" and even had the guts to ask the same person who reverted my comment deletion for "an alternative way to violate WP:TPOC" if that is what you want, and end this show trial. I'm done replying to this. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia griefing my Talk page.
Sorry to bother anyone about this but Emir of Wikipedia continues to edit my Talk page after I've requested that they no longer post at my Talk page. I believe this activity falls under the user space harassment. Harassment

It's time-consuming and discouraging to encounter these messages and have to undo them upon logging in and I would like guidance or support in ending it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of their edits seem tedious. Like you made a statement about not wanting these messages on your talk 1 and they ignored it to get one more bothersome template in. 2. They made bothersome edits instructing you to archive. 3 4. Also not really sure why Guy Macon needed to involve himself. 5 Lightburst (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot say why Guy Macon felt the need to involve himself, but I can say that a few hours before he placed the OW tag on my Talk page we had this interaction on an Article Talk page we were editing collaboratively. He has also stated in the TfD on OW resulting from this ANI report that the OW tag is to be used against registered editors "who have something to hide." Good Faith requires me to let it slide and, notably, Guy Macon has refrained from posting on my Talk page after I asked him directly to stop. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At least ping so they are aware. I do not feel too strongly about readding the OW tag, but I think we should remind TheMusicExperimental to assume good faith and not just accuse harassment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone had put that OW template on my user talk page, I would have been miffed. Not sure why we even have it, as adding to a user talk page is ALWAYS going to be seen in a negative light.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO you were harassing them. And you ignored their request to get another trolling edit in at the end. Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was restoring the edit of an admin who was reverted without explanation. Please do not accuse me of trolling, without evidence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which administrator - proved a diff? And why is this your duty to monitor another editor's talk page? Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was on about Guy Macon. I got them mixed up with who signs their signature with Guy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahem. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * More importantly, they are fully allowed to remove notices from their page unless it's a declined unblock request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't add User:Guy Macon to this ANI because after he edited my page and I then asked him to not edit my page he stopped. In my opinion, he was a dink no big deal, I asked him to stop, he did. End of it. In the case of Emir of Wikipedia I asked to Emir of Wikipedia to stop posting to my page but Emir continued to return and post to the page, becoming a nuisance. Continuing to post to my userspace, after being given a direct request to stop is in fact harassment per the way harassment is defined on Wikipedia. This is why one but not the other is included in my ANI. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment about pinging Guy was not directed at you, but at Lightburst. I will not restore that OW tag again. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Unless or  can explain what warning on the talk page fall under "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user" they should be invited to mind their own business and warned that adding that OW tag, absent a diff, is obnoxious.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless is talking about the OW template itself, (which at the time was listed as being something that cannot be removed by the user) they should be invited to mind their own business and warned that making up rules such as the nonexistent requirement that OW may only be used for deletions of nonremovable warnings is obnoxious. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the dispute arose from if ow was one of the few things that were not allowed to be removed from user talk pages.  today as they did not find any discussion about adding the item in the first place; it was  by  roughly a month ago. This issue had been raised at WP:HD by  (WP:HD) and had seemingly been resolved. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In this edit I wrote "(Please read WP:BLANKING, which says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: [...] The "Old Warnings" template.)"
 * At the time that was what was in the guideline.
 * TheMusicExperimental deliberately violated the guideline by removing the tag.
 * I raised a question at the help desk:
 * As a result, the prohibition was removed.
 * If you don't like the existence of the template, then take Template:OW to WP:MfD. Until you get it deleted, please don't criticize other editors for using it as intended. I personally think it is entirely appropriate for any editor who deletes all warnings.
 * I question the legitimacy of a user who declares that anyone who posts a warning is a troll and forbids all user warnings. I also question the legitimacy of a user tells everyone who posts a warning to stay off their talk page. Wikipedia policy is that warnings can be removed, not that an editor can preemptively forbid any warnings.
 * That being said, if an editor specifically asks you to not post to their talk page, you should not post to their talk page. If the result of this is an ANI report that starts with "normally I would have warned this user but...", too bad. You brought it on yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The section of WP:USER you're citing was added barely a month ago, with no discussion, and an edit summary of "+", tucked into a group of uncontroversial edits. It had no consensus behind it and obviously does not reflect current practice; beyond that, it was patiently absurd - obviously it wouldn't make sense that an editor in a dispute with another could slap a template warning on the other editor's page, then slap ow on it when it is removed and insist that the template cannot be removed by the user. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that it had been added a month before. And it seemed odd enough that I raised a question about it at the help desk, which resulted in it being removed. Nonetheless, we are required to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, asking that they be changed if we find them to be "patiently absurd" (patently absurd?) rather than deciding that they don't apply to us. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are defined by what has consensus, not by what's written on a page; we are required to follow consensus, not to do whatever the most recent edit to a policy page instructs us to do. Therefore, if something on a policy page looks ridiculous and plainly doesn't reflect current practice, it's common-sense to glance at the page history to make sure that eg. the page hasn't been vandalized or had some ill-considered addition slapped onto it recently without discussion.  Otherwise, what, if I were to add something to a policy page stating that it is against the rules to revert Aquillion's edits, would that have to stay because it is now policy and no one can remove it without contravening it? --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you always, without fail, research the consensus discussion behind a policy, or do you, like most people, assume without specifically checking that most written policies reflect consensus? I did check the entire revision history at Template:OW Revision history and saw nothing amiss. I also took a quick look at Wikipedia:User pages: Revision history (I normally do this when citing any policy or guideline just in case it got vandalized a few minutes earlier) but didn't notice any changes in the previous week or so.
 * You say "if something on a policy page looks ridiculous and plainly doesn't reflect current practice" But it didn't look ridiculous to me and I was not aware of any current practice either way about removing an OW tag. It did look nonenforceable, and I raised a question about that here but I don't see where I did anything wrong. I added a template once, and when it was reverted against policy started asking questions about the policy rather than adding it again. My behavior was completely correct. I did nothing wrong. Even TheMusicExperimental chose not to file a report over one edit to their talk page that was never repeated after they asked me to stop. So please, put the pitchforks down and find another monster to slay. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Why on earth is Emir of Wikipedia lecturing anyone on archiving their talk page, when they themselves delete warnings without archiving ? They should at least add ow to their own talk page,no? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have sent the OW template to MFD. We really need to not be using that.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not the purpose of OW. It primarily serves to replace IP talk page discussions, and currently transcludes hundreds of thousands of times for that purpose. It would be a bad idea to suddenly create hundreds of thousands of broken templates on existing IP talk pages. BD2412  T 00:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, there is a separate template for IPs, &  .  If they are using this on IP's talk pages, then they have missed the whole point and are using the wrong template, which is another reason to remove this template.  I agree that it is useful for IPs, but not registered users.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be clearly marked as being only for use on IP pages? The use case for that is obvious, but putting it on the account of a registered user is only ever going to piss them off. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be my second choice, but either will work. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * . — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  06:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that my requests to both User:Guy Macon and User:Emir of Wikipedia were initially direct to them on their own userspace. See Oct 9 for Emir of Wikipedia and Oct 15 for Guy Macon  . I added the note to my Talk page once it was clear that, despite receiving a direct notice that I did not welcome posting from them on my userspace, Emir of Wikipedia continued to post. The message on my Talk page is for future trolls and griefers. Guy Macon has refrained from posting on my talk page and Emir has stated that he's now going to respect my request. Given that, so long as this conversation remains available for use for people in the future to refer to--especially as Emir  and Guy Macon have a history of griefing others--my individual needs are satisfied though I remain concerned that Emir and Guy Macon will just move along to grief someone else and thus lower participation in Wikipedia. Thanks for your assistance everyone and I'm glad to hear that there is some movement toward deprecating a template that is so often used by editors to attempt to "shame" others. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Emir and Guy Macon have a history of griefing others" is a clear violation on WP:NPA. Making accusations like that without providing evidence is toxic behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not providing any citation for statements to which you are taking offense. I have fixed that above. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I CATEGORICALLY DENY "GRIEFING" ANYONE.
 * I will repeat what I wrote then:
 * "In the above comment, Fæ makes a false accusation ("This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass"). This is typical Fæ behavior; engage in vicious personal attacks while demanding that we treat Fæ with kid gloves. I am not the only one who has noticed this behavior. See the 12:0 Arbcom finding of facts: 'Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others'. "
 * "I really did make a good-faith attempt to use personal pronouns that are as inoffensive as possible without being bad grammar (plural and singular have meanings) and I am still doing my best to do this in this comment, yet Fæ still decided to fire up the well-used flamethrower. And, it appears, there is a crowd gathering with pitchforks and torches. If you want to sanction a 12-year/45,000-edit veteran editor with a clean block record -- all without any prior warning -- for doing his level best not to offend, go ahead, but please start by quoting the exact wording of the Wikipedia policy or guideline that you believe I violated. This will save time when I go to Arbcom to have the sanction overturned."
 * TheMusicExperimental, I am not going to stand here and be your personal punching bag. Go find someone else to bully with your bullshit false accusations of "griefing". And yes, I am angry. Angry and deeply hurt. Angry at you for picking a fight with me for no reason when I did nothing wrong. Hurt that nobody here has chosen to address your personal attacks. I am seriously tempted to blank my user pages, scramble my password, and never edit Wikipedia again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative environment - banning anybody from posting on your talk page for whatever reason, which is what you seem to be doing by your talk page note is effectively just saying that you are not willing to edit collaboratively. This is unhelpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the timeline and reasoning behind why I felt that the statement on my Talk page is necessary. I'm not super committed to it though and seeing as the OW template is getting revisited that's fine. I could certainly revise to include reference to WP:HUSH -- "User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. "
 * I had encountered both of Emir of Wikipedia and Guy Macon on another article where there were disputes and lengthy confusing passages in the Talk page. My statement specifically notes that conversations about collaborative editing belong on the Talk page of articles in question.
 * WP:HA begins with a quick definition of the term as it relates to Wikipedia: "Harassment, including . . . repeated annoying and unwanted contact." The opening lines of WP:HUSH are "A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them. . ."
 * Oct 9 Emir of Wikipedia added a variety of edits   to my Talk page, some of which were couched in terms that sound like trying to be helpful but taken altogether I do not believe were sincerely intended to be helpful.
 * Oct 9, deciding to assume good faith I removed Emir's edits and directly notified Emir that I did not want them to be posting on my Talk page--a clear statement that their contact with me was unwanted.
 * Oct 15 Guy Macon also posted an unneeded template to my Talk page . Note: aside from the "notice of discretionary sanctions" previously posted by Emir, I had had one other warning from an editor who, previously this year, was confused about copyright for an image and whether the caption was correct, said editor and I worked it out and you can see that in the edit summaries of my Talk page
 * Oct 15th I notified Guy Macon that contact was unwanted and subsequently Guy Macon has not posted to my Talk page and for that I am exceptionally grateful.
 * Oct 15th I also created my message to discourage griefers and trolls on my Talk page because, by this time I had two different editors encouraging me to read three different policies (none of which, it turned out, were relevant to my Talk page) and research two templates that had been applied in an attempt to understand what was trying to be communicated to me.
 * Oct 17, despite being asked directly to not edit my Talk page 8 days prior, Emir of Wikipedia returned to my Talk page to revert my edit with a non-descript edit summary.
 * Oct 17, since I had notified Emir of Wikipedia that their contributions to my userspace were unwelcome but they continued to edit my Talk page, I filed this ANI because the behavior outlined and documented above is counter to the policies regarding Harassment noted above.
 * Emir of Wikipedia has stated that they won't continue to revert the Old Warnings template and that satisfied my personal needs, but also note that it is less than my request of him which is to not post on my Talk page at all. But I do think the entirety of the situation--posting unnecessary warnings, asking an editor to read a variety of unnecessary policy documents, teaming up with another editor who happens to have forcefully expressed differences with me from a different Talk page, in response to this ANI Emir of Wikipedia claims that I should have "assume[d] good faith and not just accuse harassment" even though they had been directly asked to stop posting to my page, Emir above also suggests that they were obligated to edit my userspace--these are all problematic in my opinion and certainly discouraging to deal with as an editor. Dealing with and researching the issues above took time away from making more useful contributions to Wikipedia. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding "teaming up with another editor who happens to have forcefully expressed differences with me from a different Talk page" (I haven't had a lot of interaction with Emir of Wikipedia), let's look at the record, shall we?
 * I posted the following bog standard inquiry as to the scope of the White House COVID-19 outbreak outbreak. I commented "This has expanded from people who were in contact with Trump while he was infectious to people who were in contact with Trump after his doctor said he was no longer infectious to people who had contact with people who were in contact with Trump and caught the virus to people who had contact with people who were in contact with Trump but tested negative."
 * TheMusicExperimental, in their very first interaction with me, started with an insult.
 * Now, in an ANI report about their fight with Emir, they accused me of "griefing" without producing any evidence. Later they added a link to a previous dispute with another editor entirely where I had made a good-faith attempt to use personal pronouns that are as inoffensive as possible without being bad grammar, and when informed that this was not acceptable, immediately ceased all interaction with that individual so that their insistence on incorrect grammar no longer mattered.
 * I also had -- and still have -- a legitimate fear that, after the person who was attacking me had previously gone off-wiki and tried to get two individuals who opposed them fired, I would get the same treatment.
 * Regarding the false and scurrilous accusation that I am somehow "griefing" people over gender issues. I have a long history of supporting LGBTIQ rights. I put in hundreds of hours on the phone banks opposing the Briggs Initiative and 2008 California Proposition 8.
 * Following the advice of several admins, I have increased my use of the singular they even though I still believe that it is bad English. I am not alone in this view, and holding this view is not in any way "griefing" TheMusicExperimental or anyone else.
 * Others who share my opinion on the singular they:
 * "Not everyone is down with singular they. The well-respected Chicago Manual of Style still rejects singular they for formal writing" --Oxford English Dictionary
 * "And yet since singular they will still annoy many readers, many writers will want to write around the problem... Use singular they in relaxed prose, when you know you're in the company of those who get this right, or if you don't mind annoying a determined and vocal minority." -- The Economist
 * "The Singular 'They' Must Be Stopped. The misused word is everywhere, proliferating like fruit flies 'round a bowl of rotting bananas. We must stop it before it goes too far." --The Atlantic
 * There is room for good-faith disagreement regarding Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns -- and I use whatever form someone asks me to use even if I consider it to be incorrect English -- but falsely accusing me of "griefing" with zero evidence to back the accusation up is a personal attack and I am extremely disappointed that ANI has decided to let it slide. This is the sort of false accusation that can ruin a person's reputation and could even cause them to lose their job. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't characterize the situation as a "fight" between Emir of Wikipedia and I. He's been polite throughout, including here in the ANI. However, the reason for this ANI is that I asked him directly and personally to stop posting to my userspace but instead he continued editing my userspace. This isn't a content dispute or some sort of "wikipedia as battleground" thing, it's about what the community standards are regarding harassment, whether it's acceptable for editors to ignore direct communications that indicate less contact is desired for irrelevant matters on an editor's own userspace. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Griefing break
Lots of diffs to sort thru,but I think I got it. TheMusicExperimental was adding content to White House COVID-19 outbreak. Guy Macon came along and criticized that section on the talkpage, possibly not knowing who was editing it. TheMusicExperimental was disappointed with the tone, things got off on the wrong foot, one thing led to another, and here we are. Doesn't everything else stem from the initial talkpage posting? Can we drop everything that happened after that & just focus on that interaction? Seems like both of you may have assumed the worst of the other before even interacting with each other. Or is there more to this that I am missing? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that I had paid no attention to who had edited what section. I just thought that listing people because they didn't catch coronavirus after contacting someone who had contacted Trump was a real stretch. I still do. --Guy Macon (talk)


 * For my part, I was responding because Guy Macon was indicating he was about to make changes to the page without gathering consensus due to impatience with not getting a response to his initial text. In my response I was trying, unsuccessfully, to encourage him to be less emotional in his approach and also to provide a specific proposal around which consensus could be built. I was hoping to stem some of the drama which had been building within the talk section and was obviously unsuccessful. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The only thing that's important to me, in regards this ANI, is that I asked Emir of Wikipedia to stop editing my userspace and then Emir of Wikipedia continued to edit my userspace. Guy Macon's tone etc doesn't bother me especially, though I find it tedious. I specifically did not include him in my ANI because, unlike Emir of Wikipedia, Macon honored my request to stop editing my userspace. It isn't about disagreements on an article talk page etc. It's about whether continuing annoying and unwanted contact on a userspace after being asked to stop is within the community standards. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I really have to ask, then, why not simply talk about Emir not honoring a request to stop posting to your talk page? (Note to Emir: No. Don't do that.) Why go to the extra effort of posting about an unrelated content dispute with me? Why go to the extra effort of accusing me of griefing? Why go to the extra effort of dragging up a year-old interaction I had with someone else who appears to have nothing to do with you and which was settled to the satisfaction of everyone concerned when it happened? Why go to the extra effort of accusing me of somehow colluding with Emir -- an editor who I have seen around but don't remember ever interacting with?


 * I would really like an explanation for your behavior. This should have been an open-and-shut case; you report unwanted posts to your talk page, a couple of admins say "don't do that", Emir apologizes and promises to never do it again, case closed. Why pick a fight with me starting with your very first "It's just difficult to engage with you Guy because you get so cranky whenever you post something. No one wants to hurt your feelings is all" interaction with me? Can you not see how insulting a demeaning that was? I think you owe me an apology. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize to you Guy Macon. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for doing that - I wish a lot more people would be willing to make an actual, up-front apology on this page. I'll leave it to to indicate whether he is satisfied with that, but can I ask you whether you're satisfied with the responses here or are you looking for any further action at this point? You've requested that Emir stay off your talk, I'm sure they will respect that (users are generally expected to respect requests like that, it would be frowned upon if they didn't). Is there anything else you want from this thread, or would you be satisfied with its closure? Cheers  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to accept the above apology and unwatch this page, then I saw that, two hours after posting the above, TheMusicExperimental again posted a link to a previous conflict that had nothing to do with them and which resulted in no sanctions. None of this has anything to do with any thing Emir did so why go to the extra effort of attacking me yet again? How do I get this behavior to stop?
 * Before this is closed, I request a repeat of the above apology combined with a commitment to stop talking about me and to stop digging through my edit history and posting links to unrelated accusations that resulted in no sanctions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah - yes, that was a strange thing for them to have done., would you care to address Guy's point? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC) sorry, botched ping   Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , after posting my apology to I noticed his undated response to  in which Bison X asks for information about the nature of the interaction that occurred several hours before Guy Macon posted an OW on my userspace. In light of Guy Macon's response, I felt that Bison X was not asking hypothetically and that I should provide an answer. I provided additional context because in previous interactions Guy Macon has asked for things to be specifically noted or backed up. The drama that was occurring on that page was material to the reason I attempted to engage with Guy Macon in the first place. It's become very clear that I have no idea how to respond in a way that is satisfactory to Macon and I certainly won't seek out any further interaction with him. As to whether I'm satisfied with results so far, the truth would be I'm mostly exhausted by it.  has agreed to refrain from reverting the OW tag on my page which seems the absolute smallest available gesture, not even honoring my request which was to refrain from posting on my Talk page. You note in parenthesis above that it is frowned upon to not honor such a request. It is the not honoring of that request which caused me to file an ANI. If this is the community standard on harassment then I have obtained what experience I can from this ANI and can move on to more productive things more the wiser. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also like very much to exclude myself from the narrative that is now taking place again apparently back at the Talk page in question. I would be very happy to see no notifications or interaction with, especially in Articles which I have already abandoned due to interactions with him. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Edited 18:41, 21 October 2020
 * I accept the apology and support a speedy close. Please let it end here. I encourage TheMusicExperimental to only talk about article content without commenting on other editors. If I see any further disparaging comments about me from TheMusicExperimental I will file an ANI report for harassment and we can discuss the issue there. I advise TheMusicExperimental to drop the WP:STICK, stop replying, and wait for this to be closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that.
 * , I'm sorry you feel exhausted by this process. All I can say is that the purpose of this board is to stop on-going disruption. Emir has not posted on your talk since this thread started, and they have been told by more than one person that it isn't on for them to do so, and I doubt that they will do so again - if they do, you can come back here, and they will need to explain why they have chosen to ignore that request, but I very much doubt that they will, and for now the disruption has stopped. I'm going to close this thread now, as I believe all the substantive matters have been dealt with; please do go back to doing something more enjoyable. Cheers all Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)