Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Shakshak31

Shakshak31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ever since the eruption of the new Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, some new user/IPs have arrived to this site, including User:Shakshak31, who seemingly is not here to here to build an encyclopedia, but rather, to be on a mission of Turkification.

Some of his diffs:

Personal attacks: speak properly dummy. I'm not sockpuppet of someone. I just didn't see the archive

Major lack of WP:CIR [1] [2]. Honestly this person is impossible to work with, admittingly I don't have the best patience for this kind of stuff, yet my point remains.

Removal/alteration of sourced information and edit warring in a GA article to push his own POV, completely ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and whatnot [3] [4] [5]

Some of these removals include cited stuff such as:

Basarab's name implies that he was of Cuman or Pecheneg ancestry, but this hypothesis has not been proven.[8][11][12]

A scholarly hypothesis states that he was descended from Seneslau, a mid-13th-century Vlach lord.[4][5]

Changed the lede as well: Although his name is of Turkic origin, 14th-century sources unanimously state that he was a Vlach. -> There are multiple theories about his ethnicity.

Anti-Iranian behaviour or at least more disrespect from his side:

I'm deleting my own comment. because the iranian guy deleted my other comment.

== Persian chauvinism == Hello teacher, farsi editors on wikipedia are making Turkish history Iranian. They constantly write "Turco-persian, Turco-afghan, persianized" to Turkish states, but for example, they treat safevis whose origins are controversial as if they were purebred Kurds. Also, I added the posters to the List of Turkic dynasties and countries list. The guys watched all the articles about Turkish. If anything they don't want, they say unreliable source and delete it directly. I've never seen such a lousy site. These are the thieves of history. I will be glad if you can do something. I, too, that same farsi complained to someone I don't know called sockpuppeti and I will be banned soon. Come easy to you. You can delete the message after reading it.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've already explained all my edits about Basarab on The talk page. [6]--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I never deleted the sentence he was talking about. It's still there. I just cleared the page, made grammer edits, and deleted theories such as the theory that his name came from the dacio-thracian language. Because Dacian-thracian language died out almost a thousand years before Basarab's birth. [7]--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Also this translation sucks. what is "hello teacher"? Lol--Shakshak31 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If User:Shakshak31 is responding here, can he explain his comment, "these are the thieves of history" (Google translated from Turkish). I am familiar with past disputes about the origins of the Safavid dynasty. Over the years, that page has had to be protected about 15 times, mostly to deter people who want to make the Safavids more Turkish and less Persian. Sources seem to agree that they were both. If Shakshak31 shows by his talk comments that he is unable to edit neutrally in this domain, some restrictions may be needed. Also, if you really think this is 'a lousy site' why wouldn't you take your efforts elsewhere? At present I'm not convinced that Shakshak31 is a sockpuppet, though socks are often known for their sudden arrival on Wikipedia with strong opinions that they make known immediately. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston It's not about the Safavids. I added the Afsharids to the List of Turkic dynasties and countries because they were Turkmens from the Afshar tribe. Also Nader Shah's mother tongue was Turkic and Nader Shah doesn't have any Iranian (as ethnicity) ancestry. But a Persian editor revert it. That's what that sentence was about. --Shakshak31 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Shakshak has made unacceptable statements in his edits as can be seen above, referring to other editors as "thieves of history", amongst others. When confronted with these edits, right here at ANI, he still refers to another editor as "a Persian editor",[8] a clear violation of WP:NPA. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that Shakshak31 is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Persian an insult?--Shakshak31 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You say it in demeaning way, you do realize we all have usernames? Do you refer people by their background instead of names irl too? Also, instead of asking questions, shouldn't u answer Ed already? This is exactly what I mean that this user is impossible to work with. He won't answer your questions / avoids them, and when he actually does, it's barely. HistoryofIran (talk)

• @Shakshak31: I will block you indefinitely if there are any further comments along the lines of "a Persian editor revert it" (diff above). Any similar terms that attempt to describe an editor are also totally unacceptable. At Wikipedia, what counts is the edit (the text that is displayed in an article). Any assumed characteristic of the editor making an edit is irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that @Shakshak31: became active again a few hours after his disruption at Basarab I of Wallachia (which he forced on the article by edit warring) was partly reverted by another user. He is yet to answer what he was asked here. He has now resumed his attempt to Turkify the article once more by removing sourced info and this time even adding his own personal opinion [9] [10]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

First read what the sources state and then talk. [11] [12]--Shakshak31 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

We've literally already had this discussion, you are trying to force a theory into a fact. Hell, you even added your own personal words to the article. WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT at best. We have rules here, which you are breaking right left and center. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Curiously, User:Shakshak31 has created a userpage at User:MLP050 and then moved their own User & Talk pages to it. At the very least, this is a bad page move that needs to be undone. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ouch. I have reversed that move so the links in Shakshak31 (talk · contribs) are correct. I also explained on their talk about WP:RENAME. This thread is likely to be archived with no action unless something dramatic happens shortly. If further problems occur, feel free to put a brief explanation on a talk page (an article talk page if a content dispute) and ping me from there. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof

The editor NorthBySouthBaranof seems to revert politically contentious edits, edits intended to improve an article's neutrality, on articles that have serious left wing biases in certain places. This has been a problem for a while, starting with George Floyd's article, where I wanted to add more information on Mr. Floyd's medical examiner report. He reverted that edit, and claimed that reverting his revert was a blockable edit warring. Looking at his userpage, you can see many cases, and even more if you look in the talk page's edit history, of people complaining about him reverting edits intended to improve the representation of both sides in an article.

He has been a significant hindrance in me trying to improve the representation of all people, regardless of whether or not they are progressives or conservatives, in articles. It seems that I try to remove more liberal biases than conservative ones, but the fact of the matter is that there are more liberal biases than conservative ones.

Thanks, --JazzClam (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you considered the parable of The Mote and the Beam? Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @JazzClam: I strongly suggest providing WP:DIFFs that support your claim. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll echo what Tenryuu said. We can't possibly know what you're talking about, and thus make any determination as to whether there's actually a substantive behavioural issue, without a few illustrative examples. Otherwise it's just hearsay, and your subjective interpretation... Which obviously isn't fair to the editor being reported if we were to only rely on that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Op seems to be engaged in a content dispute on Ilhan Omar204.76.134.30 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Where it looks like a number of editors have reverted their "improvements" to the article. It seems that the PoV may be on the other foot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Beyond My Ken: Bravo! 👏204.76.134.30 (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think OP could benefit from discussing their edits on the affected articles' talk pages. Checking Talk:Ilhan Omar as an example they haven't engaged other editors as to why their edits are being reverted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

My revert on Ilhan Omar is self-explanatory. Their edit removed the well-sourced description of Donald Trump's false, defamatory claims that Omar praised al-Qaida and smeared American soldiers. This is, of course, unacceptable - WP:BLP demands that we not falsely defame living people, and thus if we include notable false claims about a living person, we must be crystal clear that they are false. For that and other reasons, their edit was objectionable and I reverted it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, JazzClam posted a notice on your talk page 2 minutes after this report was submitted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And see the OP's talk page. I'm wondering if an AE sanction is need here. Doug Weller talk 06:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The OP's record here is not terribly impressive -- basically a run-of-the-mill POV pusher. They have also violated 1RR at Ilhan Omar. --JBL (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to stop at Ilhan Omar; JazzClam seems to have been trying to remove properly-sourced negative Trump statements from several articles, such as their thrice-reverted removals of content from Postal voting in the United States that described (with sources) Donald Trump's efforts to obstruct postal voting this year. There's also a copy of George Floyd's toxicology report that they pasted into Draft:Pyrotol (a completely unrelated title), which seems to be part of a plan to revisit their proposal to state, in Wikipedia's voice, in the lead of the George Floyd article, that his death was the result of a fentanyl overdose and not from having a police officer kneel on his neck for nine minutes (example). What they describe here as "improving neutrality" is really glossing over or removing any reliably-sourced information they appear to disagree with, which has the effect of skewing these articles to a more pro-Trump point of view which is not supported by material published in reliable sources. I suggest a topic ban covering the scope of WP:ARBAP2 is probably in order. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to edit for political gain, that's it. I'm trying to improve the political neutrality of the encyclopedia. The fact of the matter simply is, that there are more typically liberal biases on this encyclopedia than typically conservative ones. I mostly remove politically contentious keywords and replace them with neutral ones. In the case of the Ilhan Omar article, I changed a line saying "Trump claimed without evidence" to "Trump claimed". That was it, the content of the line is still the same, a claim is a statement, whether or not it is true, in this case it was false, and the "without evidence" portion simply served to villainize (not saying i approved of what he said) him, that's it. All i do is remove or change keywords like that, things that detract from this encyclopedia's neutrality. I don't remove any facts, or add any competing ones, I just remove sketchy wording that makes articles seem more like an opinion piece rather than a neutral, irrefutably factual, article. JazzClam (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You grossly fail to understand NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@JazzClam: On Wikipedia, WP:NEUTRAL means that we—as editors—must neutrally summarize what reliable sources say. It does not mean that Wikipedia needs to maintain a WP:FALSEBALANCE between left and right (or science and religion, or any other X vs. Y dispute). If more reliable sources favor one side, then we give WP:WEIGHT to that side, and we characterize the other side as a minority position. If most or all reliable sources favor one side, we may not even mention the other side at all. That's what NPOV means. Woodroar (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@JazzClam:, Woodroar is right. I suggest you read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang sanctions against JazzClam

• JazzClam appears to be here for political reasons rather than for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. See WP:NOTHERE. The least response would be a post-1932 US politics topic ban. Otherwise an indefinite block. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• 1st choice, Indef block. 2nd choice TBAN post-1932.(derp) for JazzClam; I have little confidence in their desire to not propagandize or (in their eyes) RGW. That they spread the POV pushing to an area outside post 1932 US politics and that they bring a complaint to ANI when someone does not go along with their agenda makes clear they would not be able to contain themselves. They are NOTHERE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support TBAN post-1932 - This user JazzClam has some constructive edits outside of political topics. But I saw a few red flags while browsing their contribs. They thought it okay to use a draft page to put together a table of the toxicology report for George Floyd ([13]) while pushing to include info about a "fatal" fentanyl level in his blood. Recently, nearly all their edits have been to keep "NPOV" by removing Trump-critical content, and even "China-centric" content ([14]). There is also this user page edit that is somewhat concerning. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Just for clarity, @Deepfriedokra and EvergreenFir: can you clarify if you mean you support a block/TBAN against NBSB or JazzClam? At a glance it appears to be the former, but I think you mean the latter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: Thank you for noticing that. I was referring to JazzClam. I will edit to clarify. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per my comment above I support AP2 topic ban, but oppose indef block. The user has constructive contributions outside of this scope, I haven't seen any evidence of WP:NOTHERE but whoever said WP:RGW hit the nail on the head (I was going to say WP:TE). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban for JC -- the RGW stuff needs to stop, but I think it's worth exploring the possibility that they can contribute constructively in other areas. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam - an indef is not necessary at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam. The degree of their failure to understand NPOV is appalling, so they should stay away from controversial articles until they have learned to understand that policy. -- Valjean (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam. The area is sufficiently troubled without someone who totally misunderstands NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for JazzClam and request close per above. Lev¡vich 21:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• also support AP2 ban. JazzClam doesn't get it. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 (or post-1932) TB for JazzClam and an admonishment to stay away from other controversial articles until they understand WP:NPOV and WP:RS. ◅ Sebastian 02:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB or Indef for JazzClam. Even after policy explanations and (most of the) !votes above, JazzClam still thought it was a good idea to add "liberal" to the lead of MSNBC because Fox News is described as "conservative". Editors who refuse to listen and understand our policies shouldn't be editing in this area. Really, they probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. Woodroar (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TB for Jazz Clam in light of the user's problems with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Cunard Afd Practices

Hi, I want to make a complaint about User:Cunard and they’re series of behaviours at Afd, specifically the mass dumping of reams of text. I don’t normally complain about an editor. I think this is my first time. I think I have reached my limit. This after two years looking at this. I stopped taking part any of Afds that Cunard has been at. About a year ago, they’re was a VPN article, which is a dog of a company. Now we have an article, that people will assume is good, even though they were at absolute bottom of the ranking, about 3500 down the list. That was the limit at the time. This is absolute limit. I think it is simply unacceptable to dump huge blocks of text in this manner. The most recent example I came across is a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zocdoc. I don’t think Cunard really cares of about Afd. I suspect his whole purpose is to ensure the article is kept, even at the expense of destroying the whole conversation. Looking at Zocdoc article.

advertisement.

It an advertisement. So they’re posting anything to stop the conversation, assuming folk are going to put off reading it because there is 16k of text here. That would take more than 10 hours of work if it was article being created. Instead he/she has copied it wholesale out of the website, which is itself a violation of copyright. Nobody wants to read this text. If is effectively a stop on the discussion. This is another example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok. Not a single one of these references are valid. More so, there is 39 of these hotels, so in effect this is an attempt to break the Afd. It has chilling effect on new Afd participants, who look at it, and crap out. I know that for a fact. It has a chilling effect on established editors, because it takes so long to work through the text and determine if it valid and often it is not. When the Afd is closed, the closer isn’t reading the text either, so it breaking the close function. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I too have found the gigantic walls of text to be offputting, and anyone habitually !voting delete with comments of such extreme length would have been blocked or topic banned ages ago. But is there anything stopping you from just ignoring it, scrolling to the bottom, and putting in a vote of your own? It's not like anyone is forcing you to read through it, and it's not as though you'd be missing anything of value by ignoring it. It's basically Wikipedia lorem ipsum. Reyk _YO! 10:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the quote blocks from two open AfDs: having 10K of quotes is problematic for copyright reasons, and didn't really add anything. However, these were pre-hatted, so took up little space in reading mode (they were annoying in editing mode). The addition of lots of sources to AfDs is what we expect editors to do, so I see no problem there (assuming they are good sources, which I haven't checked). Fram (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

They never are though, that's the thing. It's inevitably just a grab-bag of advertisements, blog posts, press releases, and marketing churn. Good point about the excessive quotations being potentially a copyvio problem too. Reyk _YO! 11:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• July 2020 ANI for same issue —valereee (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Which seemed to be just as baseless. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz, if other well-intentioned experienced editors working in the same area are finding it disruptive to the point they're willing to open a thread here, I'd argue that makes it not a baseless concern. Disruptive editing doesn't need to have ill-intent behind it. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bizzare to see this complaint. For over 10 years I recall being stunned by the quality & quantity of hard to find RSs Cunnard brings to AfD's. As Fram says, it's expected from good editors, though none seem to do it quite as well as Cunnard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying he/she is not doing good work in other areas, but this is ridiculous and its errant behaviour and disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It is the equivalent of reference-bombing an article to mask the overall weaknesses of the sources. I doubt many closing administrators take the text walls seriously. ValarianB (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Kudos to Cunard for their efforts. Consider the Zocdoc AfD, which is the basis of the complaint. First notice that the AfD had to be relisted because there were zero valid responses during the first round. Cunard then stepped up to do what no-one else would volunteer for and their input is outstanding. For example, they list an NYT source that seems to really hit the spot in demonstrating notability. And notice that they don't just give a raw URL which might hit the paywall but go the extra mile by providing an archive link. This is quality work and Cunard should be congratulated on their diligence.

The OP complains that they have to read this material. This is an absurd complaint because, per WP:BEFORE, a nominator is supposed to conduct such a detailed source search before they waste our time with an inaccurate nomination. If the OP is failing to do this work and can't even be bothered to look through the sources when they are presented on a plate, then they are not doing due diligence. A boomerang should be considered.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok and look at the !votes.

• 11:19 - User:scope_creep points out that most of the sources are press releases and similar.
• 11:44 - User:Andrew Davidson votes "Keep" for no reason other than someone quotes an essay. No rebuttal of the sources.
• 12:02 - User:FeydHuxtable votes "Keep", saying "highly notable hotel as ably demonstrated by Cunard".

• This nonsense is never going to end, is it? Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• What the nay-sayers seem to be saying is that, if you list sources it's bad, and if you don't list sources, it's bad too. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• No what the people who have deal with cunards wall of useless texts is that A)if you post sources to refute notability, they should be good, not a bunch of regurgitated PR crap scraped from a Google search. B)if you are going to just vote keep you should actually address the core concern, not rules lawyer over reference to essays, c)if you are going to vote 'keep as per list of crap' you should address the concerns with that crap. Since as black kite has demonstrated it is impossible to get editors to do this, ideally people closing the diacussion would rightly disregard such arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) AFAICT, no one is saying that. What they are saying is that listing bad or crap sources is bad. Note I make no personal comment on whether any of the sources are bad/crap sources. I simply read what others said and tried understand what they were saying. Editors may disagree, perhaps strongly, on whether the sources are bad or crap, while still understanding (and probably agreeing) on the overall point. (I.E. that just because someone listed URLs doesn't mean these are useful reliable secondary sources that demonstrate meeting WP:GNG.) I can see why there may be a problem if you couldn't understand the point Black Kite and others seemed to be making, rather than simply disagreeing with their view of the sources. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Christ. This is the Wikipedia equivalent of technobabble. Nothing actionable about it, unfortunately, but I certainly don't agree with Andrew on a boomerang. Seriously, we need to stop throwing rocks at people for bringing legitimate concerns up to ANI.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with WaltCip that this is a valid issue to bring up at ANI. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be actionable in the (looks to be unlikely) case we were able to develop consensus; the most productive editor can also be very disruptive. Anything that other experienced, well-intentioned editors are finding disruptive enough to bring two cases to ANI in four months is maybe at least worth making clear to Cunard that this is being seen as disruptive and they should try to avoid 1. posting walls of text 2. quoting carelessly collected sources 3. including copyvio to AfDs. —valereee (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Cunard does legwork that we want people to do for an AfD, finding what sources exist. It was a problem when he took up a massive amount of space in the discussion. Now that nearly all of the content is hatted, I have no issue whatsoever with the practice. Yes, Cunard always goes for keep ... and is about the only one of the always-keepers that actually backs up that opinion with sourcing. Sometimes those sources are misguided, but often they're not. Looking at ZocDoc AfD, I see NY Times, Wall Street Journal, journal articles, etc. Those aren't garbage. Yes, you're free to respond/challenge those sources and it's entirely possible they don't constitute notability (I haven't looked closely at them yet), but these aren't self-published press releases/spam. They're the kind of thing that anyone would find if they set out looking for sourcing, and which you should expect to have to counter if you're arguing to delete. We have plenty of people who fill AfD with baseless keep (or delete) !votes based on handwaves to sources or personal interpretations of notability with no effort whatsoever. The problem is not someone who does the research. The copyvio claim is IMO a big stretch, and I'm surprised anyone is willing to act on it without finding consensus that including a limited quote, with attribution, is a copyright violation (or that including multiple quotes from multiple sources for some reason makes it worse). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't call e.g. a 268 word quote a "limited quote" (see the first quote I removed here, it's about 1/4th of the full article. In the second AfD I pruned, the first quote was 198 words[15]. The Brownlee quote was 249 words, from a 590 word article. That's not a "limited quote" at all, that's excessive. And yes, adding more and more quotes makes it less and less defensible to claim fair use and brings it closer to being a copyright violation. (Note that I have only removed these from the two most recent AfDs, but the practice can be found in many older ones, like a 360-word quote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Art Association, many long quotes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street Medicine Institute... Regularly adding 10kb+ of quotes to AfDs is not an acceptable practice. Fram (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • From where are you getting the idea that 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, are excessive? Lev¡vich 16:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
      • If I would write an article and someone would copy 1/4 or 1/3rd of it, not even to comment on the quote (e.g. criticising what I wrote or praising the prose), but simply to strengthen a point they are making, then I would consider this as clearly excessive. When someone routinely does this, even more so. There is no hard-and-fast rule for this, ut if 1/4th isn't excessive to you, then what is? Anyway, looking online gives rules of thumb like "max 300 words from a book-length work", or "best at the most 10-20% for a short work". Fram (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter what you would consider or what I would consider. Neither of us are experts or authorities on copyright law. You are expressing personal views/assumptions/results of online research, none of which make a good basis for claims about copyright law. In other words, if you don't know what the rules are... Lev¡vich 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
          • There's so much wrong with that response... For starters, there is no hard-and-fast rule, that's the main issue with fair use application. Wikipedia has historically treated this much stricter than required by law, see e.g. our fair use rules for images which don't even allow such images on an article talk page even if you would discuss it, nor in a draft article. And then, when I do try to find some outside guidance, from things like Stanford Uni, it still isn't acceptable and even those aren't a "good basis". I would like to see you propose an alternative then. Would quoting 99% of a copyrighted book (with attribution) be acceptable to you? 75%? 50%? 25%? Where and how do you draw the line? Or are you proposing not drawing a line at all and letting people quote as much as they like, as long as they use quote marks and attribution? That won't fly. We have to draw a line somewhere, and posting more than 1/4 of a work is generally (and by me) considered excessive (just like posting many long quotes is more excessive than just posting one, as there is less and less need to post additional quotes, so less and less justification of "fair use"). If you can't suggest some better alternative, if you can't actually indicate what the rules are and what is or isn't acceptable then, then I will continue with that rule of thumb. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

            You're making up rules because you think you have to make up rules. You don't have to make up rules. We don't need a rule about how much quoting is too much quoting in an AFD discussion. We don't have to draw a line anywhere. You're inventing a problem that doesn't exist. No one in the history of Wikipedia has every complained that their copyrighted work was being quoted too much in AFD discussions. It's just a ridiculous made-up thing to be worrying about. Lev¡vich 02:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

            • Actually, it is policy. It is scattered over multiple pages, but we have things like "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used [...] Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."(WP:NFCCEG). Lower on the same page: "Unacceptable use: Excessively long copyrighted excerpts.". Note also "The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is therefore subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law." There is no definition of what is "brief" and what is "excessive", but the distinction is a basis of our (or any) fair use policy, and some cut-off is needed. That doesn't mean that my cutoff is correct or undisputable, of course not, but to simply reject that any cutoff is needed is going against what is required in our policies, and not simply "a problem that doesn't exist" or "a ridiculous made-up thing". Fram (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

              I started out by asking you the basis for your claim that 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, are excessive within the meaning of our policies and/or copyright law. In your responses, you have admitted multiple times that "excessive" is not defined in either our policies or copyright law (neither is "extensive", "brief", or other such descriptors of quantity). Thus, you have no basis for claiming that 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, are excessive; you are quite literally making up the "rule" that those quantities are too much. Thus, you have no basis for claiming it's a copyright violation, and thus no basis for removing the quotes under WP:TPO. As such, I have restored the quotes. If you think we should have a rule that copying 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, or any fixed word count or proportion, are excessive under WP:NFCC, propose the change to NFCC. But please do not enforce rules that you have just invented (e.g., that 268 words, 1/4 of a work, or 249 out of 590 words, are "excessive" under NFCC). Lev¡vich 16:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm surprised people are complaining about him listing coverage it gets, and even quoting the relevant parts so you don't have to click on each one to go and read it. This is rather helpful in an AFD. And it doesn't violate copyright laws to quote something for this purpose, this clearly fair usage, it not in the main article just in a deletion discussion. Dream Focus 16:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Uh, "quoting the relevant parts so you don't have to click on each one to go and read it." is definitely not a fair use defense. That's it is in an AfD and not in an article also doesn't make it better, e.g. fair use images are only allowed in articles and not anywhere else, including in AfDs. Fram (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Listing sources and quotes is helpful (I don't agree the quoting is copyvio). The ZocDoc AFD is a bad example for this: the sources Cunard listed include NYT and WaPo; while I quibble about one or two sources on Cunard's list there, overall they seem solid. Conrad Bangkok is a bit more difficult to parse: lots of travel guides and such, which I don't think make for good sources. Still, if we cover hotels (and we do), travel guides and hotel reviews are going to be sources for those articles, just like book reviews are sources for articles about books. I think both of Cunard's lists would have been stronger if they had 5 items instead of 10, and that would be my big suggestion to Cunard: do lists of 3 or 5 instead of 10. If you're listing NYT and WaPo, don't list things like Entrepreneur and NYObserver: they actually weaken rather than strengthen the list. But, this isn't ANI-worthy. Yes, there are problems with churnalism and promo articles surviving AFDs, but these two are bad examples (better examples: bagelry, toy store, lawyer), and I think !votes without sources and quotes are a much bigger problem than someone !voting with "too many" sources and quotes. We should encourage sources and quotes at AFD, not discourage it. Lev¡vich 17:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't agree the quoting is copyvio. Well, to quote you: It doesn't matter what you would consider. Hold yourself to the same standard. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

    No evidence has been presented supporting the copyvio claim. Better? Lev¡vich 17:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

    • • For the sake of not pressing it further. Sure. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• What reams of text, User:scope_creep? I see a list of references. I feel guilty now for just providing links, instead of such well formatted lists of references. Personally, I'd be more concerned by the first delete vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok, that once again, did 7 delete votes in 7 minutes, which quite clearly means they did not do the required due diligence. I'm also concerned you aren't doing enough WP:BEFORE nominating. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fram has removed the quote walls, you'll have to check page history. (E.g. this) Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. But boxed. Not sure they needed to be removed - small amounts of quoted text should run afoul of copyright - though perhaps some were a bit long - not quite sure where that line is. At the same time - I don't even see anyone posting on Cunard's talk page in month, and only a single post there since summer! Has User:scope_creep tried to discuss this before coming here? Cunard in the past has been dragged to ANI (see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042#User:Cunard, rather unnecessarily in my view, and now has added quotes to demonstrate the RS. And now there's complaints about that. To me, this looks more like an attempt to bully an editor that one doesn't agree with, than anything real. Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• First of all, I find User:Cunard to be one of the single best contributors to AfD. I find that he makes it really really easy for me to evaluate sources. He provides great detail and finds sources that I can't find even after looking for 10+ minutes. Secondly, in the worst case, just hat it. Third, I'm not a lawyer, but I do teach copyright law as a part of my job. With my understanding of fair use, it is really really unlikely that this wouldn't count as fair use. Really. If copied onto a commercial site (which our licence allows) and if indexed in a way that made it so that one could easily find the quote when looking for the article? Then it *might* get debatable and I'd recommend to anyone who asked me to contact a lawyer. In any case, I see no problem with what he posted. I *do* see a problem with Fram's reversion. He shouldn't be editing someone else's text. If he really thinks there is a copyright problem, he should be asking for it to be removed from the history too I should think. There is a whole template and set of directions for dealing with copyright issues. See [16]Hobit (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Removing copyright violations / excessive fair use without taking further action is often done. Yes, one can go the extra mile and ask for revdel of the revisions, but in this (and many other) cases that would be overkill. People removing fair use images from pages where they aren't allowed usually don't bother with revdel and so on either. As for the fair use, remember that we are and have always been way more strict than what may be necessary by law. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Images and text are two unrelated things. Images aren't allowed unless you can prove its necessary, and reduced to be as low quality as possible, this is for server load reasons. There is nothing wrong with quoting parts of a news article in a deletion discussion to prove it gives coverage to something. Dream Focus 12:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • "For server load reasons"? So somehow free images don't produce server load issues, but fair use one do? That sounds rather unlikely, anything to back up your claim? Fram (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • You can check this at WP:FILESIZE, your claim is totally wrong. Fram (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Huh, I stand corrected. Exception: If the image is copyrighted and used under fair use, the uploaded image must be as low-resolution as possible consistent with its fair-use rationale, to prevent use of Wikipedia's copy as a substitute for the original work. Anyway, as far as the text goes https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html explains it quite well. So you need to undo your incorrect removal of text. Dream Focus 15:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
          • That link doesn't indicate that my removals were correct or incorrect, it basically boils down to "it depends" and "every judge can decide on their own" (no, this is not a legal threat, I wouldn't start a legal case over extremely blatant copyright violations, never mind over these good-faith borderline cases, and I doubt anyone else would). There is no fixed, easy-to-use rule, that's why you can find all kinds of advice in books and online (from good sources); but if they do give numerical values, then 10-20% or 300-400 words (whichever is less) seems to be often used as a rule of thumb. The quotefarms I removed violated this at least in part. See also Masem's comment below, who is kind of an in-house copyright expert (together with User:Diannaa and some others I now forget, User:MER-C probably as well). Fram (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
            • I call BS on those numbers. For a purpose like Wikipedia's, it would be a lot higher. There are 4 prongs to fair use, the amount is only one part (the 3rd). To claim some number or another without looking at the other 3 is silly and wrong. If you don't understand fair use, you really have no business trying to act as an enforcer in that area. And if you are going to claim there is some % or word count that is problematic independent of the context, you really don't understand fair use. Wikipedia may choose to be more strict, but there is no indication that it has done so for a case like this. In any case, let's discuss the copyright issue at WP:CP (where you have also started a discussion on this same issue). Hobit (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
              • "A lot higher" than copying 42% of an article? Indeed, if you don't understand fair use, you really have no business in that area. Dumping large quotes from many articles without actually discussing them in any way is not fair use, and the responses by other people (including you) have indicated that "it is easier not having to go to the article" is the only reason to support this. "Fair use" doesn't equal "makes my life easier". Calling things "silly" or "bullshit" may sound impressive to you, but doesn't make you any less wrong. And of course, why you feel the need to reply here four days later when the discussion about this aspect is already happening at the location you, in your wisdom, indicate as the right one, is unclear.
              • Let's analyze whether you know what you are talking about, shall we? "There are 4 prongs to fair use"? You mean the four prongs we have for images at WP:FUR? You are aware that we are dealing with text here, no with images? For quotes we have 3 prongs, not 4 (oops), at WP:COPYQUOTE. Above the three prongs, it already states "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.", and the first prong concludes "Editors are advised to exercise good judgment and to remain mindful that while brief excerpts are permitted by policy, extensive quotations are forbidden." Not "are forbidden unless the other two prongs are met", no, simply forbidden. If the other two prongs aren't met, then even brief quotes would be forbidden. But even if the other two are met, you still need to keep the quotes brief, not extensive. That's our policy, not some silly bullshit. If you don't like, go to WP:VPP and get it changed; but don't pretend it doesn't exist or may not be enforced. Fram (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
                • Fram, my statement was "There are 4 prongs to fair use". Please see Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors. Hobit (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
                  • We were talking about Wikipedia policies, which are different (more strict) than the law. I'm not here to enforce US law. Fram (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                    • @Fram:"There are 4 prongs to fair use". Anyone even vaguely familiar with the copyright issues should have recognized that statement as referring to the relevant US law that dictates if Wikipedia is violating copyright. Instead you call it "some silly bullshit". You refer to our policies as determining what is "fair use" when they have nothing to do with that at all--fair use is a legal concept, not a Wikipedia concept. And when it comes to Wikipedia rules, your complaint at WP:CP got shot down. Please stop acting like you are right here. You clearly don't understand the law and you have been told you were wrong on Wikipedia policy. But you stand by your guns and insist that editing someone else's comment and then complaining here and on WP:CP about them was the proper thing to do. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                      • Hobit, I don't care about the US law, the US law about fair use is not relevant to me. We have policies and guidelines about what enwiki allows or not wrt fair use, and these are different for images and text (though obviously the basics behind them are the same. If you don't know that there is a "fair use" concept in law, and a stricter "fair use" concept on enwiki, then it is useless discussing this with you, but it does explain your wrong notions about this. We have Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, a "policy with legal considerations", which specifically states "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law." Emphasis mine. For the record, I did not call the US law "some silly bullshit", I said that our policy is important and shouldn't be dismissed as some silly bullshit, taking two words you used in the post preceding mine. And also for the record, the CP discussion was not "shot down", the closure[17] was "the quotes probably shouldn't have been there in the first place but them staying there doesn't really make a difference", or a "no consensus" basically. That's not "shot down", that's not "upheld" either, that's "people don't agree and it was in a grey area". Fram (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                        • That's all great. But you still don't seem to understand that fair use is a legal term, not a Wikipedia term. "There are 4 prongs to fair use, the amount is only one part (the 3rd). ". You didn't understand that was a reference to the US law. If you are doing work enforcing copyright rules here, you really really should have. Wikipedia rules are built around that law because that's the law that applies to Wikipedia. Again, at least educate yourself on the topic before continuing to work in this area. What I said shouldn't have been confusing, but you either misunderstood it or willfully ignored my plain meaning. Either is troubling. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                        • I said your numbers were BS. There is no bound in fair use doctrine or Wikipedia policy that makes those numbers "bad". There are instead words like "excessive". You can't just claim that some percent or total word count is "excessive". You have no basis for doing so, it is going to depend on context. That was my whole point'. And the one Levivich is making here and at WP:CP too. If you feel there should be such numbers, propose that update to our policies. But don't just claim that "X%" or "Y words" is clearly excessive. Context matters. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                          • You know that terms can have both a legal meaning in the US, a different legal meaning elsewhere, and a Wikipedia-specific meaning? That when we e.g. state that non-free images must have a "fair use" rationale, that this is a rationale which has to follow the Wikipedia rules? Since for fair use the enwiki rules are more strict than the US law, it doesn't matter what US law states? Again, it does not matter if quote X is allowed under US law. Really. It doesn't. Your continued insistence on US law is not helping you here. As for the numbers: fine, forget the numbers. Enwiki allows brief quotes, and forbids excessive ones. In the context, I believed these quotes to be excessive; a whole serise of long quotes without any discussion of them. The context somewhat mitigated this (using them in an AfD makes some sense, e.g. simply putting them on a user page would be worse), but not sufficiently. In my opinion, yes, just like many things we do here, many policies and guidelines that are being enforced, are opinion-based. There are no fixed numbers or statements for harassment, incivility, CIR, NOTHERE, ... People get warned, blocked, reverted, ... based on the opinion of others about what the policy means. Sometimes this is blatantly clear, sometimes it is borderline, sometimes it turns out that nearly everyone disagrees. But discussion of this is done in an adult way, listening to each other, and appreciating when someone tries to provide background, statistics, examples, whatever, to justify their position. Discussion should not be done in a "gotcha" way, like here. All you bring to the table is "no", all the while ignoring enwiki policies and guidelines completely and discussing law instead, as if that was what I was trying to enforce. If you believe that our non-free content criteria should not be any stricter than US law, then it is up to you to get the policy changed. But ignoring policy, and trying to scare people away from enforcing it (not by actually showing that they interpret the policy incorrectly, but by claiming that it isn't required by law, and by calling what is presented "bullshit" without presenting a better (or even any) policy-based alternative), is weak. Unless you change your approach, I'm done discussing this with you, and will ignore your advice, as there is nothing in there with a solid basis in our policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
                            • Thanks. I think we've managed to resolve the actual point that matters: Arbitrary values of number of words or % of original work aren't enough to claim that there is a fair use problem--it needs context. I'm glad we agree on that now. What I was calling BS was your just stating numbers and claiming that was enough. Sounds like either I misunderstood you or you've changed your mind, either way we are good going forward. The other main issue, you not being familiar with the principles of fair use in US law (which is what our policies are based on), is assumedly now fixed. If you haven't taken the time to read the Wikipedia article on fair use in US law I pointed you at, I'd urge you to do so. Again, that's what underlies our policies and where terms like "fair use" in our polices are taken from. And I believe not understanding that creates potential for poor enforcement actions (as I believe happened in this case, and yes, I know you disagree). All that said, if you continue to edit other people's AfD votes on this basis, without getting consensus somewhere, we'll likely be back at ANI. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• For notability AFDs I would always take at least 15 minutes to analyse the article and its possible references – sometimes I take far longer. Now, I realise some people just throw in a !vote one way or another but I hope, for substantial articles, those swaying the final close will have done considerable work. Therefore "it takes so long to work through the text and determine if it valid and often it is not" puzzles me. Surely anyone nominating or supporting deletion will have gone through such references already and will know which are unsuitable in their view. You do not need to study them all over again. For some matters other than notability, such as promotionalism, it may be possible to take a view without studying large numbers of references and you can quickly skip over any suggested list of references. An invalid deletion harms the encyclopedia and can sometimes be devastating for editors who have put in hours of work creating it. It is not something that should be done in a hurry. I welcome Cunard's work and have found it helpful on AFDs I have tackled. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• This doesn't look as though it is going anywhere. Discussion on Afd protocol are really redundant, as everybody is different. I read very fast and there is various shortcuts you can employ to shorten the time further, so a function of time to evaluate Afd isn't particularly valuable. There is no qualitative comparison that can be made between two editors. I stick to one type of Afd, on the whole, so its even further different. I see a lot of folk supporting Cunard, he is an excellent editor, but this isn't the first time this has been reported, which I didn't know. So there is dissatisfaction, obviously various groups. If it not addressed, I will need to go further. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If you don't get what you want, you will "need to go further" and repeat this same thing again when you think the random group of editors to notice and comment might agree with you? He has done nothing wrong, and should not be discouraged from helping people sort through the evidence that an article meets the notability standards. Dream Focus 12:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That depends. Sometimes his sources are useful. sometimes they are not great. If they could be useful all the time, there'd be no issues. And certainly, people block !voting "Keep" and quoting sources that aren't any good is a problem. Black Kite (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think the issue is the excessive quoting. Providing N sources at an AFD when challenged (where they then are discussed if they are good or bad) is absolutely fine, and should be part of an AFD process. But there is no need for the large quotes from those sources as well, as that does veer on the copyright/fair use problem - this is part of our WP:NFC policy. Let the !voters review and make comments and if a specific source becomes the subject of debate, brief quotes can be used then but they are almost certainly not needed upfront when providing the sources (as in the Zocdoc AFD). But as for dumping a list of sources they found in AFD? Great. It would be nice if they had a bit more awareness of what are poor sources like press releases and the like that would be dismissed immediately for notability concerns, but that itself is less an ANI than the large quotes leaning into copyright. --Masem (t) 15:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• I just voted on the Conrad Bangkok article. There's really two issues I have had with Cunard over the years: Not all of the coverage that's found passes WP:GNG even though it's frequently presented as such, and the large blocks of text which disrupt the process generally. The first isn't a problem as long as you have quality participants at the AfD. Often a string of "keep, there are sources" which follow without doing the critical work, and there have been a couple articles kept which really should have been deleted because of it - for instance, I'm noting that the travel reviews of the hotel at the AfD aren't suitable for determining notability, though enough sources exist in that article where it's not a problem. The second problem is on Cunard to take to heart - providing a list of sources with links is great, and identifying the WP:THREE best sources for WP:GNG purposes is even better, as opposed to the long quotes of text, which can be mildly disruptive at times and a possible copyright issue as others have noted above. I think if Cunard can agree to add sources in list form and only use limited, select quotes where a source may not be easily accessible online, it would be an additional benefit to the encyclopaedia, but there's nothing specifically sanctionable here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just gonna pile on to say that providing one good source trumps multiple mediocre sources. If you are going to the trouble of finding these sources it would be useful to at least highlight the best ones instead of dumping them all in indiscriminately. This just creates extra work for others and I can see how editors would find it disruptive. I have a bigger concern with the pile on !votes from editors pushing quantity over quality. AIRcorn (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• It seems apparent that Cunard is already being quite selective in the sources that they list. Consider the OP's case of Zocdoc, for example. When I use a plain Google search for this then the top ten results are:

1. Zocdoc – the company's own website
2. Glassdoor – employee feedback
3. Wikipedia – our article
4. Google Play – the Android app
5. App Store – the iOS app
6. The Motley Fool – investment advice
7. Twitter – their social media
8. Wolff Olins – a branding case study
9. Harvard Business School – a student case study
10. Instagram – more social media

Now there's lots of good detail in these hits and Google will have its reasons for putting them at the top of the list. But they might not be well-accepted at AfD and notice that Cunard does not include any of them in his list. So, Aircorn's criticism fails to appreciate the extent to which Cunard is already doing what they are suggesting. I've produced source lists like Cunard's and it's a significant effort to find, filter and format the results. If people think they can do better then they are welcome to try but I'm not seeing much competition. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent analyses Colonel. Our buddy NA1K sometimes makes source lists of similar quality, can't think of anyone else. About the only thing Cunard might want to take from this discussion it to maybe cut back a bit on the quotes. Otherwise, their energy & sound judgment are an exemplar to less skilled editors like myself and perhaps some others here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I had a discussion with Cunard about a particular AfD some time back, where I offered some advice that was taken in the right spirit. In the specific case of Conrad Bangkok, one thing I don't like is when people !vote "keep" at an AfD without improving the article, simply hoping that somebody will do the work, which makes the closure something of a pyrrhic victory. I would much prefer people took the sources they found and expanded the article with them, rather than simply listing them at the AfD. It's all well and good for assessing consensus, but it doesn't directly help the reader who won't see it. I realise I do this as well because the article is something I don't know much about or don't have confidence in editing it to a sufficient standard, but I do so with the knowledge that if the AfD closes as "delete" because I didn't put the work in, then that's tough luck and I have to endorse the consensus given. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot to be said for that view Ritchie. But it works best if it's a two way thing. I.e. if editors who has previously nomned or voted delete are willing to recognise the WP:Hey. Back when I was an ARS reg I'd often totally re-write an article up for deletion, and many of these articles remain largely untouched 10-12 years later. What killed it for me was this AfD. War and conflict is the one area of human activity I best understand, so I was confident of a Keep after I spent several hours addressing the valid WP:Synth concerns & improving the article with top tier sources. But it was still deleted. Since the horror of that sunk in I've been loath to touch articles under attack at AfD. Not sure I could handle a repetition of that sort of rejection. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I have put a lot of effort into rescuing articles in the past but this is a thankless task. Either the nominators refuse to recognise the work that has been done or, if the article is kept, they sometimes claim the credit for getting the work done. This then encourages them to nominate more topics for deletion as a way of getting them improved. Rescuers are routinely burnt out by being taken advantage of in this way. For example, see Nicholson Baker's account The Charms of Wikipedia and note that they don't do that any more. Myself, I am now more sparing with my efforts too. And the good thing about putting detailed data and text into the AfD rather than the article is that it is unlikely to be deleted. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• It seems like the only thing controversial here is the box o' quotes, which although I don't think it's actually a fair use problem may be a NFCC problem. Unsure. That may merit a discussion at a different venue. But one thing this discussion made me realize is that while I've seen a Cunard quote dump probably hundreds of times now, and while I've gone through the sources linked therein, I don't think I've ever actually read the quotes. Because, y'know, context and judgment and whatnot. I assumed the quotes were to help people decide which sources to look into more, but I find you don't have to click on each one to go and read it actually a rather terrible outcome here, if that's what they're intended to do. We need people to see the sources for themselves whenever possible, to see the context of the quotes, the rest of the quotes, the source itself, etc. It sounds like the existence of Cunard quotes is an excuse for a lazy keep !vote. As I don't think they really do anything good, I'd be in favor of ditching in the quotes, but unless we can get definitive consensus that it's a NFC problem I still feel reluctant to support any sort of enforcement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, they border on NFC problems. Obviously unlike images, we allow "non-free text" on non-mainspace, but this should still be considered in the NFC-like framework - is it supporting the constructive purpose of the encyclopedia, is it minimal use, etc. If one pulled a source in an AFD and quote a sentence that showed why per that source the topic was notable as part of their argument, that's fine. But the practice we're seeing here seems to be a semi-mechanical approach that does take too much of the original sources. Quote-dumping without explaining the purpose doesn't help (particularly as many above had said, better energy would be directed to explaining the value of each source or weeding out press releases from quality sources). It's not a red-flag COPYVIO warning, but it is a practice that strongly should be stopped as it is very much borderline. More selective use of smaller quotes and adding reasoning why a source was included would go a long way to help the AFD arguments to keep while avoiding copyright issues. --Masem (t) 15:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

    Note that Fram started a discussion about the COPYVIO question at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 November 19, which I think is a much better place to discuss that issue than ANI. Lev¡vich 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• The copyright issue needs to be separated from the behavioural issue. The initial issue that was raised here was behavioural, and is totally without merit. People are expected to provide evidence at AfD for their position, and Cunard does so. If you disagree then simply say why the sources provided do not meet notability guidelines, or ask in the discussion for the best sources to be identified if you don't feel like looking at them all. The copyright issue was raised later and is better discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 November 19. I must add that I have had several instances where the nominators at discussions or others who are asking for deletion have asked me to provide quotes from sources that I have added, or even copies of the whole source, so this practice needs to be stopped if it is a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Providing a quote to support a request at AFD is reasonable. (Providing whole sources on the other hand should not be handled on WP, or at least, not the source text). The issue here which is partially behavior and partially copyright is blinding including quotes from a source dump. The source dump is "good" (this could be improved but nowhere close to a blockable issue), but quoting each article with that source dump is both a copyright issue as well as behavior (how does that help at AFD if that quote hasn't been requested?) --Masem (t) 18:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It helps me because then I don't have to click on the link or find the most relevant section. In any case, probably best to keep this discussion about behavior and have the copyright issues discussed at WP:CP. Hobit (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• For what it is worth, I think that providing excerpts from the sources is very helpful. I'd much rather look at few key sentences from a source, showing in-depth, non-trivial analysis than be given a link to a source and a claim that somewhere in it there is substantial coverage. Of course, per WP:QUOTE, such quotes should not be overly long. Fair use and all of that. As for the behavioral issue, this boils down to whether the sources are good or not, on average. And whether Cunard learns to avoid low-quality stuff like press releases. Sometimes he finds good sources, sometimes bad, but since he has been here for years, I'd expect that the ratio of good to bad should be increasing over time. If it is not, hmmm. Honestly, even if most of his sources are bad, this is just a bad vote to ignore by the closer, but nothing sanctionable. The onus is on the closers to distinguish good arguments from bad, WP:AFDNOTAVOTE and all of that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• In terms of behaviour, I see nothing at all actionable or objectionale in Cunards use of sources at AfD. On the contrary, providing actual quotes instead of just links is quite helpful in understanding the depth and the nature of the coverage involved. If there are valid NFC concerns here, that's a different matter, but that's a much more technical and special question that belongs at WP:CP. From the diffs provided nothing jumped at me as an obvious NFC violation although there were a couple that did seem longer than I'd like. Nsk92 (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Can this please be closed? The other issues don't generate new comments, and the copyright issue (or non-issue for some) has been handled at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 November 19. The continued posts here only bring more heat, no light. Fram (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the CP you opened? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, my personal opinion is that it's not a serious breach of copyright, and using quotes to illustrate an argument is fine, but in the future I recommend @Cunard: to use smaller excerpts and/or less quotes at afd. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

31.5.133.157

• 31.5.133.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi All, IP User 31.5.133.157 is mass-editing articles such as Eurasia and List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia without providing any edit summaries and zero sources, since yesterday. Most information being added such as on Federation of Euro-Asian Stock Exchanges and Eastern European Group‎ does not seem to be constructive or accurate. I have tried to revert where possible, however the volume of edits is just too high in most cases. Many thanks, Archives908 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is deliberate, but it seems that some of their edits consisted of adding super-inflated world maps and other landmarks to various articles that disrupted the layout of the page, so I reverted some of them. I have no idea what the IP is trying to accomplish here but their edits probably need some eyes. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 15:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I have no clue either. They are still at it...a new (unexplained) edit every few minutes. The user seems to be focused on geography from what I can see, but they're sporadic editing style with zero explanation is certainly not constructive; nor is the content they are adding. In the Eastern European Group‎ and Federation of Euro-Asian Stock Exchanges articles, the user added Turkey and Azerbaijan, respectively, as members (which they are not). In the Eurasia article, the user added Turkey and Pakistan under Soviet states (which, again they are not). I cannot explain what they're objective is, but it is disruptive nonetheless. I have managed to revert these edits prior to the disruption, but based on the trends in their edit history, this chaotic style of editing pursues. Any further guidance? Much appreciated, Archives908 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, have a glance at Istanbul Process, none of the edits make any sense. 12 edits done in a about 1 hour, with zero explanation. Archives908 (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

And now, they have moved on too List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania, 14 unexplained edits in less than 15 minutes. Archives908 (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

...and subtracted 1 mill square kilometers from the area of Angola ([18]]), blocked on Wikidata, reverted on Commons... - 4ing (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, 4ing for your help reverting the Users continued disruptive edits. Archives908 (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: Have you tried talking to the IP editor about these edits? Lev¡vich 06:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Please block the IP (even if temporarily to get their attention) as they just keep on making incorrect edits even after being reverted multiple times. DexDor ^(talk) 13:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree DexDor, this IP user is still engaging in disruptive edits. Just yesterday, the user made 16 edits in about 35 minutes on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia, with no edit summaries or explanation. Based on their edit history, this is the general style of their editing- mass edits with zero explanation, zero sources, zero rationale. This user has made a mess on several articles and does not seem to be engaging in conversation here (or anywhere). Several of their edits have been reverted and the user has been re-adding content with no discussion. Furthermore, their edits are not improvements to those articles and most of them should be reverted. Archives908 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Muirchertach1 and WP:TE/WP:3RR

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

---

Muirchertach1 is an editor who dabbles in highly controversial areas but does not seem inclined to remain civil or discuss changes nor gain consensus. Their first block was in 2019 for editing 9/11 conspiracy theories and edit warring. Their second block was for edit warring at Stop the Steal (and attacking editors on the talk page), as was their third. They seem to be aware of edit warring as per this edit summary (Undid revision 989709868 by Praxidicae (talk) OK, so just for the record, you are reverting my edits. You once, bradv once. But I'm sure I'll soon get banned for 3rr anyway. Then you say 'take to talk' as usual. YOU take it to talk - and you haven't started a discussion there - if you want to revert and it have a problem with it.) so these short term blocks don't seem to be working. They've even reverted again since I started this - upping it to more than 4 reverts. They have been DS warned, 3rr warned (and blocked previously for it!) but seem only interested in pushing their point of view. I believe that at this point a topic ban from either American Politics or conspiracy theories broadly construed is appropriate, if not an outright indefinite block. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I just gave them a 1-week block per standard escalation and more edit warring. I'll leave this open mostly for comment on whether an indef is appropriate. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that in between me starting this, Primefac temp blocked however I think this is still a discussion worth having - an editor with 126 having four blocks for edit warring in the same area seems unproductive to me. Praxidicae (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that a topic ban should be fine. If they continue, indef. Invalid^OS_talk 15:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

They don't seem to do very much at all other than fight against reliable sourcing on AP2 articles. A topic ban ought to help; they were DS-alerted on November 10. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Support an AP2 topic ban. I have experienced the same issues with this user and the fact that they are not taking any feedback on board makes me extremely skeptical they can edit productively in this topic area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps an indef is just more appropriate in this case. They don't seem to edit anywhere else and only appear to be here to stir trouble...Praxidicae (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Praxidicae. I've been watching this user's edits and even if they did edit in other areas I doubt their behaviour will change. I'd support a topic ban as second choice. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. This isn't the first time they've waded into AP2 (c.f. 9/11 conspiracy theories in September 2019) with unpleasant results, but otherwise they've made generally constructive contributions, including fairly significant additions to Native American Church and Crispus Attucks. They appear to be blind to their own bias with respect to American politics and so they should not edit that topic, but otherwise I just don't see a justification for such a serious sanction as a site ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, GorillaWarfare, Praxidicae, Primefac, Ima thrown something out there--note the whitewashing in the Crispus Attucks article. I was involved in a series of edits there; a friend alerted me years ago to what appeared to be Wikipedia editors whitewashing this article by removing his heritage, and voila, there it is. You will note that Muirchertach1 starts editing on 29 January 2019 in this article, which is also of interest to scholars of African American culture--only days after Psmith85 (talk · contribs) was blocked by Coffee, for POV edits, whitewashing, etc. related to Crispus Attucks. You'll find that both accounts have edited Attucks making similar edits, and both have edited Harriet Tubman (edits related to ancestry).

I think Muirchertach is a sock of Psmith. They're kind of odd; I don't think they're the usual kind of racist right-wing troll we see all the time; I think Ivanvector has a point with "blind to their own bias". What we should do about my suspicion, that's another matter, and one I cannot delve into right now, since inexplicably Kentucky is in scoring position against Alabama, and I (and Tide rolls) have to focus our attention or all might go wrong. Kelapstick, I assume you're wearing your Alabama shirt today. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through these edits right now but drmies check out this too. Praxidicae (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive edits by USER:Toltol15 to Sub-Saharan Africa, ignored previous ANI report, still ignoring explanations and warnings

I previously (several days ago) reported USER:Toltol15 here for persistently adding a non-peer-reviewed scientific source to Somalis, ignoring edit my notes (explaining the problems with their edits and why they were not WP:RS), and edit warring. (They were, on that page, most recently, reverted by another user, USER:Rsk6400.) But Toltol15 ignored the report (the original/first report I filed you can see here: [[and_other_things]]). Toltol15 was also warned by an admin (USER:Drmies) and ignored that as well.

Today Toltol15 has again added the same non-peer-reviewed source to another article (Sub-Saharan Africa). I reverted them twice (each time with detailed explanations, hoping they might listen) but they have continued to consistently refused to engage or listen, ignoring my notes, ignoring the point, and have reverted me/reinstating their edit twice. Whether intentionally or not I do not know, they have repeatedly missed the point regarding the importance of peer-review for scientific studies used in articles. To avoid edit warring I have not reverted them again

Here is the edit history of Sub-Saharan Africa for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sub-Saharan_Africa&action=history

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Toltol15 engaged in edit warring after receiving a warning from Drmies, but hasn't edited since this ANI report was filed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

IP disrupt

So, this IP 167.176.36.240 has suddenly started adding a lot of religion cats to BLP/BIO articles which are not even mentioned in the article. Can a sysop block him, very disruptive edits which are unlikely to stop considering their editing behavior (also likely a sock of someone else). Also pinging @Fylindfotberserk: please see if you can check the edits of this IP. Gotitbro (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: I came across them IP before. I've reverted the ones that are in my watchlist. I did a few today. Seems tedious since each of the articles need to be checked, as some BIOs I came across do mention religion in the body. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

SPA and IP on James Veitch (comedian)

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

---

Some odd behaviour at Talk:James Veitch (comedian). The user Tompg has made 22 edits spanning 22 February 2017 to a few days ago, all on the topic of James Veitch. Never seen anything like it. Claims no COI. After beginning edit warring over a claim reliably sourced to The Hollywood Reporter and The Independent about the numerous sexual assault allegations made against Veitch, the user engaged in conversation with me on the talk page, which including doxxing an accuser (with information not publicly available online). The user stopped replying a couple of days ago and now the IP 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 comes along contesting the same content, with some rather... ahem... alternative reasoning: all allegations are just newspapers scoops and look more like witch-hunt for artists's money, so popular nowadays [...] I believe that if this content is not removed, this might bring to litigation against Wikimedia Foundation and I think this needs urgent attention of other editors and OTRS.

The IP is now forcing an {{Undue weight}} tag on the page, where it clearly does not apply, and a rather off-beat interpretation of both the law and Wikipedia in which we can't mention information not proven in a court of law. Very suspicious behaviour all-round—I wonder if anyone thinks anything is actionable (undisclosed COI, socking/meatpuppet, NLT, NOTHERE or other), or can work out what is going on a bit better than I can. — Bilorv (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I've protected the page, which seems like the only justifiable action at the moment. There could be dodgy editors on both sides of the argument. Deb (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Chronic, intractable behavioral problems with 124.169.236.71

This IP editor has a considerable history of edits to celebrity pages and other pages which have resulted in numerous warning messages on his talk page. (See for example the pages of edit history at John de Lancie). The edits vary indiscrimately from minor improvements, to minor violations of the MoS, to gossipy trivia, to more serious WP policy violations. Many other more experienced editors have attempted to communicate with this IP, but the intractable IP never responds. The IP editor also never writes edit summaries. When other editors attempt to clean up his edits (writing edit summaries and talk page messaging for him), he persistently reverts the pages back to his own last version. again with no explanation. This is genuinely disruptive behavior by a clearly incorrigible editor who has amply demonstrated that he has no understanding of the fact that a wiki is a collaborative project. -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Links for convenience: 124.169.236.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There's another Adelaide-area IP 124.169.229.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that has a nearly identical editing behavior that stopped editing just before 124.169.236.71 started up. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the person editing from 124.169.236.71 moved over to 124.169.252.67, which got blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. So the person then moved over to 124.169.225.142 and is continuing (wouldn't that be block evasion?). John de Lancie is now page protected for a week (extended confirmed protection), so that page is safer for the time being. Here's a summary of the IP hopping this person has done so far:

• October 6 (7:17) – November 6 (20:49): 124.169.229.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• November 6 (22:02) – November 21 (23:17): 124.169.236.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• November 22 (3:08) – November 22 (4:36): 124.169.252.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) BLOCKED for 24 hrs beginning on Nov. 22 @ 5:44
• November 22 (21:38) – present November 23 (01:07): 124.169.225.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

– 108.56.139.120 (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Now he has hopped over to 124.169.237.27:

• November 23 (06:46) – present: 124.169.237.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan, at war again

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

---

Chronic problems on Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I appeal again for administrator intervention in these issues, which are both maddening and intractable. A previous post here was archived without administrator action or comment, but the concerted tendentiousness of multiple editors in favour of a virulently, nationalistic, and denialist fringe interpretation of the Syrian Civil War which wilfully ignores all evidence presented to it and is explicitly POV-pushing while unashamedly using the most contorted hostile sealioning strategy is too much to bear. Authoritative input is sorely needed, nearly all dissent has been banished from the talkpage by the interminable circularity of what passes for discussion, which has caused other to resign editing from exhaustion. Please help! GPinkerton (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I second this appeal. GPinkerton is refusing to discuss. He have a battleground mentality, and a very rude behavior, which dragged me into his level. Please convince everyone to be civil (and everyone was, tbh, before GPinkerton arrived). GPinkerton is also part of the content dispute, so we need a neutral arbitrator.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• I propose the following: topic bans for the all the relevant editors, including the one above, from the following areas: post-1292 history, politics, and geography of the near and middle east. Their relentless campaign of POV pushing has been called out numerous times, but nothing ever done. I haven't looked at their other contributions, but I have a strong feeling all these editors are heavily focused on Syria-related articles such as these that can be adapted as platform for soapboxing, which is getting very tiresome now and is a net negative to the project, not to mention intellectually abhorrent. GPinkerton (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Above is a clear example of what I mean. The style of this editor is: if you dont agree with me, you should be blocked or banned because Im the only one who have a sound argument and there is no other point of view. Thats why we need intervention.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Examination of the facts will prove the comment above at characteristic variance with the nature of reality. Alas, the talk page must be read from the top. GPinkerton (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article for a month, which should at least stop the edit-warring until more lasting sanctions or similar can be imposed. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Continued Discussion

• GPinkerton I'd advise you to reform your request for intervention. The article's recent history is very active, and its talk page has multiple lengthy combative threads going on. Please consider being specific about which editors you're talking about, and provide diffs that evidence the accusations you are making. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  ​re-ping, botched first attempt GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Girth Summit All the discussion focuses on one issue, from beginning to end. It's been going on for many months with the same handful of editors. It's clear from reading the talk page who is pushing the peculiar fringe POV along the lines of "Syrian Kurdistan does not exist and Kurdistan has never existed, not ever, and is not used by a preponderance of RS". One only needs to read a bit, it repeats after a while and rapidly becomes clear how the page dynamics have evolved over the past half-year or so. GPinkerton (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  GPinkerton, what I see from a skim of some of the later sections is a rambling, uncivil discussion, all parties being exceedingly snarky, with some of them crossing the line into blatant personal attacks. There is a lot of heat, but very little light for someone like me who knows very little about the subject matter, and who is unfamiliar with any of the sources under discussion - if you are calling for editors to be topic banned, you are more likely to gain traction if you are specific about who, and why.

  I will say this though: Attar-Aram syria, your comments about using Arab nationalists if Mehrdad Izady is used aren't appropriate - that approach leads to false balance. It is important to use the best sources available, and to discuss competing viewpoints where they exist, but we don't attempt to 'balance' articles in the way that you suggest. Per WP:GEVAL, we should be aiming to identify and use the best mainstream sources that cover a topic, not seeking out sources because we know that they favour one position or another. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you Girth Summit. That rhetoric of mine came as a result of knowing whom I am daeling with, after participating in that talk page for a while (note, I have not add a single word to the article itself). So it was just an empty threat, which I will retract. I would like you to note that I presented three academic sources questioning Izady, and the other user responded with the word: none-sense.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria, thank you for withdrawing that suggestion - you might want to go and strike it on the article talk page as well to make that clear. Without wanting to get into the content dispute itself, I'd make the general observation that finding some academic sources that generally question or criticise a scholar's work is not sufficient to demonstrate that the scholar's work is unreliable for our purposes (it would be unusual for a scholar to have received no criticism in their lifetime). What you need are reviews or citations criticising the specific parts of the scholar's work that are being used to support assertions in our articles. Again, this is a general comment - I haven't reviewed that part of the discussion in depth, so I don't know whether or not that is what you have done. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ofcourse, and the sources I brought deals exactly with the book of Izady that is being cited. He is not a normal scholar, but a Kurdish nationalist, so it is inappropriate to use him for Kurdish topics without qualification.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Girth Summit, the main problem at the "Syrian Kurdistan" article are mainly two editors, Konli17 and GPinkerton, the first one is pov pushing a kurdish nationalistic agenda, falsifying history and adding fake maps he has made in MS paint:[19][20], he has edit warred to get these fake maps with unreliable sources into the article: [21], the other problematic editor is GPinkerton, shes strongly pushing a nationalistic kurdish agenda falsifying history and reality. GPinkerton claimed that Syrian "Kurdistan" existed during the French Mandate in Syria, she had added this into the article, I asked GPinkerton on the talkpage to please show me a historical source from the 1920s talking about a Syrian Kurdistan[22] and she dismissed my comment with: "What you imagine to be possible or otherwise is of decreasingly little interest to me and betrays an increasingly wide estrangement from reality on your part. It certainly has no bearing on the content of the article." she refuses to engage in a cooperative discussion, the truth doesn't matter to her. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  Supreme Deliciousness, as I said, I see snarky commentary from just about everyone on that thread. The part you have quoted is far from the worst of it, unfortunately. Why do you say that Konli17 created that map themselves? From what I can see, it was uploaded by a commons editor called Ferhates - are you saying that they are the same person? It would be really helpful if everyone would be willing to tone down the rhetoric about each other here - actual evidence of malfeasance will speaker much louder than assertions about each others motivations. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• It's difficult to tell whether this is a failure to understand the topic, a failure to control the scope of the article, or nationalist equivocation and sleight-of-hand. A "Climate and agriculture" section? Looks like the opposite of a POV fork, a POV amalgamation of Kurdistan, Kurds in Syria, and Kurdish nationalism. fiveby(zero) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• GPinkerton jumped into this article out of nowhere, and came with a very specific, aggressive POV-pushing agenda. Nobody is saying "Kurdistan has never existed" as they claimed above, don't put words in others' mouths! You have been trying hard to show that Kurds did live in Syria. Well, no one is arguing about that, and Syria has known two Kurdish presidents. However, Kurds have lived in Syria either in big cities (such as in Aleppo, Hama and Damascus), or in small village clusters in three non-contiguous areas along the northern border as a result of intensive migrations from Turkey encouraged by French mandate authorities, as shown by this French comprehensive work (among many others) on Jazira Province (modern day al-Hasakah Governorate). This is another French report also talking about the history of that area and how towns and village were built for the new refugees. This is why serious accounts refer to those areas by the name "kurdish inhabited areas" (see this CIA map). The main kurdish presence is in northeastern Syria, and they have lived there entirely mixed with the population, and have been a minority since they first started to cross into Syria from Turkey. This report by the highly-regarded International Crisis Group reads: The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province). Azmi Bishara and colleagues counted 17 such migrations and talk thoroughly about this issue and its origins (here is an English summary). I had inserted this cropped map from Mark Sykes in 1907, specific to the area Kurds call today Syrian Kurdistan", showing the distribution of Arab and Kurdish tribes in upper Mesopotamia with the train tracks separating Turkey (to the north) from Syria (to the south). Note that there were no Kurdish tribes south of the railway (i.e. in what later became Syria). GPinkerton decided to remove this map and inserted the full map (for an "unknown reason"). GPinkerton removed reference to one of the sources talking about invention of "Syrian kurdistan" while inserting documents talking about a "Syrian kurdistan". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of incompetent comment that this editor has already repeatedly made. Note that the railway shown in the map is entirely conjectural and never existed and moreover note that this editor used a cropped version of the map because the uncropped version shows the words "Kurdish tribes" in all caps in territory now in modern Syria. Make if that what you will. The perverse insistence that everyone pick up the fringe attitude of Damascus and Ankara towards (perhaps also Saddam?) against the continued existence of Kurdish people on the grounds that (like both Syria and Turkey) they did not have a state in the 1920s. This denialism flies in the face of what reliable sources have called the region for a half century or more. Indeed the source quoted above details in depth the long history of the term "Syrian Kurdistan", in stark contradiction of the shrill and either disingenuous or ignorant claims by this editor that it had never been used before 2011, and was cooked up by the west to embarrass the Dear Leader. GPinkerton (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In particular, the claim above that the Syrian part of Kurdistan was Kurdish-minority is a telling admission of yet another refusal to accept reality; all reliable sources attest that the three areas referred to as comprising Syrian Kurdistan were majority Kurdish at the time. The claim that they were all imported there by the French is just a silly lie and not borne out by even the most cursory look at the sources advanced in favour of this POV. Especially cute is the claim were should put "Syrian Kurdistan" in scare quotes, based on that one quote Amr like to strip of context and use as though it supports his position; there has to be some great irony in arguing an encyclopaedia should not be using the English language's 21st century common name and quoting in support of this argument an academic work in which the term appears innumerable times throughout. GPinkerton (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr's opposition to WP:COMMONNAME is relentless. Konli17 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Our problem in this article is that we have people with no prior knowledge or competence but certainly with a strong POV-pushing agenda editing here (see comment on Saddam, etc.). GPinkerton is claiming the Istanbul-Baghdad railway "is entirely conjectural and never existed". Well, this shows the amount of knowledge this user has/does not have. Here is an excerpt from the Franco-Turkish Treaty of Ankara (1921) describing the new border between Turkey and Syria The frontier line shall start at a point to be selected on the Gulf of Alexandretta immediately to the south of the locality of Payas and will proceed generally towards Meidan-Ekbes (leaving the railway station and the locality to Syria); thence it will join the railway at the station of Choban-bey. Then it will follow the Baghdad Railway, of which the track as far as Nisibin will remain on Turkish territory; thence it will follow the old road between Nisibin and Jeziret-ibn-Omar where it... Again nobody is denying the existence of Kurds in Syria (or elsewhere), as Pinkerton falsefully claims above. Moreover, Pinkerton is falsifying facts (or has a serious map-reading problem) claiming the uncropped Sykes map described above shows "Kurdish tribes" in all caps in territory now in modern Syria". I am not sure which tribes they are referring to, probably DINAR KURDS and BARAZIEH KURDS, which are the only Kurdish tribes close to the border! Both tribes are in the Seruj (now Suruc) and Birecik area, which are now just north of the border (i.e. in Turkey). I just uploaded [Sykes demographic map of middle section of Syria-Turkey border. The town of Ras al-Ain is in Syria.jpg this section of the Sykes map] for better focus. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Amr's comments are implausible and betray POV pushing. In the real world, the border between Syria and Turkey actually runs through the words themselves approximating the position of "KIKIEH KURDS". In any case, the map has no relevance to the subject at hand, and was laughably mislabelled as having something to do with showing distribution of Kurdish tribes and as showing a railway line one the border's present location, a proposition false on both counts: the railway line existed only on this map, and it does not follow the border decided more than a decade after the map was drawn. In effect, Amr has produced a map showing a proposal to alter the route of an as yet unbuilt railway which was never built in the location the map describes becuase the propsoal was never enacted. It cannot be used to claim Kurds did not inhabit Syrian Kurdistan, and has no relevance to the article in question except to refute the claims Amr has made about it. GPinkerton (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on Syrian Kurdistan

• Supreme Deliciousness, having been sanctioned by ArbCom for infractions relating to nationality and ethnicity a decade ago, arrived at Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as soon as it appeared in 2015, adding an OR tag to the article [23]. But this (northern hemisphere) summer, the saga appears to begin for Supreme Deliciousness with removing [24] as "unreliable" the source of the entirely incontrovertible statement in the lead that Syrian Kurdistan consists of three non-contiguous areas of Kurdish inhabited territory on the Syria–Turkey border, presumably on the grounds that it was The Kurdish Project, a Kurdish-interest NGO of some kind.
• Next, they remove [25] a source to an academic publication by the London School of Economics' Middle East Centre with the misleading edit summary "unreliable source".
• Next they remove [26] a citation to Reuters on the grounds that "Reuters sources does not confirm that part of Syria is Kurdistan" even though the Reuters article states plainly: "Locals no longer call this region northeastern Syria, but “Rojava” - Western Kurdistan." They also add [27] a {POV} tag to the article. Not content, they then add [28] an Ottoman era map of the notional boundaries of late 18th century top-level administrative districts in the empire with the oh-so-decisive caption "1803 Cedid Atlas showing "Kurdistan" in blue on parts of modern day Iraq, Iran and Turkey. The atlas shows no part of Syria being part of a "Kurdistan"" and adds [29] an {according to whom} tag to the lead sentence. After this, they later remove this very Reuters [30] statement from the article on the clearly POV grounds that "This quote deserves no inclusion in an encyclopedia". Still unsatisfied, they added [31] {who} and {according to whom} on some weasel wording established by another to distance Wikivoice from the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" and added [32] scare quotes to all instances of the term in the article with a "so-called" prefix to make the POV extra clear, even more explicit in the succeeding edit, [33], which without explantaion or edit summary replaced the words "While many of the Kurds in Syria have been there for centuries, waves of Kurds fled their homes in Turkey and settled in Syrian Al-Jazira Province, where they were granted citizenship by the French Mandate authorities" with the rather more partisan "Waves of Kurds fled their homes in Turkey and settled in Syrian [[Al-Jazira Province]] ..." and thereby removing any reference to the centuries of pre-WWI habitation of Kurds in the areas subsequently known as the Syrian Kurdistan. They also removed [34] the remnants of the Reuters source, which they had mutilated in haste, showing the removal of the whole quote and its source were repeated and deliberate attempts to exclude the information.
• They then added the first expansion of their own [35], a history section which acknowledges despite later claims to contrary, Kurds did indeed live in what is now Syrian Kurdistan before the partition of the Ottoman Empire, but which rather emphasizes the post-WWI ethnic changes, all the while referring to entire modern Syrian Al-Jazira province to stress that Kurds were a minority there, nicely leaving out the smaller administrative subdivisions where Kurds were in the majority (i.e. the three districts directly bordering the Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistans). There are good reasons to doubt that the all sources cited fully back the picture presented here, and the potential for deliberate omission seems high. They summarize these changes with the heartfelt "It is extremely important for the reader to see where the people that are advocating for so called "Syrian Kurdistan" to see where they come from, so please do not remove this very important information" and added [36] some further scare quotes and "so-called" prefixing, declaring "you can not present as a fact that an entity called "kurdistan" exists in Syria, you have to put in in quotes because it is imaginary and not real or factual. Please stop your pov pushing." This last was swiftly reverted [37] by Applodion who identified the POV pushing of Supreme Deliciousness in the edit summary.
• Nevertheless, more POV editing [38] ensued, again minimizing the validity of the term, and next a whole sourced statement to a well-recognized academic expert was removed [39] as "POV statement, can not be presented as fact".
• Later, Supreme Deliciousness re-added [40] some most irrelevant stuff apparently motivated to suggest 1.) Kurdish responsibility for the Turks' Armenian Genocide, and 2.) Kurdish non-nativeness in Syria. This was explained as "Very disrespectful of you to remove this important information about the history of northeastern Syria. This is important information directly related to the history of the region." They re-remove the phrasing [41] "Kurdish-inhabited areas were usually only regarded as "Kurdish regions of Syria" before the 1980s", with the rebuke that "I asked you on the talkpage to show me what states and international organizations recognize this pov and you failed to do so." They also added [42] scare quotes to "unification" and "Kurdistan", claiming that "quotes are needed to not present the claims as facts".
• After an edit war, Supreme Deliciousness re-added [43] remotely related information about the Assyrian Genocide with the policy-free edit summary that there was "No consensus to remove" it. A bit more editorializing followed, changing the wording of sourced information [44]to remove mention of the Ba'ath Party, its policy of Arabization and of the Kurdish inhabitants the autocratic Party's forced migrations displaced.
• Supreme Deliciousness re-added [45] their editorializing caption on the irrelevant map, despite it having been removed by Escape Orbit on the very reasonable grounds that it "What a map *doesn't* show, is original research and the opinion of the contributing editor. Therefore relevance it has to this article is equally POV". Supreme Deliciousness retorts that "Its not original research because it is an accurate description of the map."

  

  Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western KurdistanSubject of an edit war

  

  Kurdistan as suggested by the Treaty of Sèvres was located north of the Syrian border

  — captioned by Supreme Deliciousness

  The borders on this map are being given undue weight. The Kurdish areas shown are only the areas of cultural Kurdistan that Britain and France didn't themselves want and didn't think should be Armenian or wasn't already Iranian. The Treaty of Sèvres was never enacted in reality, and was motivated by imperial interests and considerations nothing to do with where Kurds might be located or entitled to inhabit. The map has place in the article but it appears to be being used as a sacred text to deny that there could ever be such a thing a Syrian Kurdistan (not shown but scattered immediately south of the anachronistic modern border of Syria and Turkey)

• The next edit is a minor one, months later, when they add [46] {Request quotation} to a sourced statement stating Kurds have lived in the area since the Middle Ages. After that, Supreme Deliciousness removed [47] the words "Around 80% of Syrian Kurds live in Kurdish-majority regions along the Syria-Turkey border." on the grounds that this source was "unreliable". They then remove what they describe as a "fake map" [48] used on French Wikipedia and Kurdish Wikipedia and uploaded in 2013, followed by some POV changes [49] to the lead. They also restore the erstwhile removed map of the partition of the empire by the Treaty of Sèvres, along with its anachronistic caption, on the grounds that the map itself was "important historical map". Separately and in another context these actions might be commended, but together they evidence a cherry-picking of information and the desire to present one very particular side of this story to the exclusion of al others. With this edit [50], Supreme Deliciousness seeks to give greater prominence to the antique Cedid Atlas map, together with its misrepresentational caption of "Kurdistan in blue" (in fact neither blue area on the map is labelled as such, and for good reason; the 1803 Turkish copy of an earlier British atlas naturally does not show the short-lived Kurdistan Eyalet set up later that century and swiftly reabsorbed into the parent Diyarbakır Eyalet, and the blue is in fact the Mosul Eyalet and is marked as such.
• The next edit was to restore the weasel wording [51] after it was again rightly removed, changing for example "Various areas have been claimed to be part of the Syrian part of Kurdistan" to "Various areas have been claimed to be part of an alleged "Syrian Kurdistan" entity" together with more scare quotes added [52], [53].
• Next came a big reversion [54] of changes wholesale following others' edits with the confusing and ill-grounded summary "Restore version before disruptive forced edit warring without consensus". Supreme Deliciousness again removed [55] the source ''The Kurdish Project'', and though objections were raised to the edit summary of "See talkpage, "The Kurdish Project" is not a reliable source and is non-notable", Supreme Deliciousness failed to establish any rationale beyond the fact the organization does not claim to be a news agency and the fact it did not and still does not have a Wikipedia page of its own. This looks like Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of Supreme Deliciousness. They next removed [56] the same source they previously removed, again without explanation beyond the claim that "sahipkiran.org is not a reliable source". Again, this is nowhere explained or justified. The same story occurs next, with the removal [57] of attributed territorial claims. They then forced the lead back into their preferred version with the summary "restore lead changed without consensus". More deletions [58], this time without even a hint of exculpatory edit summary, followed.
• Next, Supreme Deliciousness [59] again removes well-sourced material and less POV text in favour of their own textus receptus. After this I find some sources and expand the article.
• Supreme Deliciousness, seeing this, decides to revert the entire thing, citing [60] "false terminology" in their edit summary: "See talkpage, this kind of false terminology can not be used in an encyclopedia," a really extraordinary response to sourced material to which I supplied citations and quotations, all of them, to a page, using the precise terminology "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Western Kurdistan". Still, Supreme Deliciousness appears to hold dear the unfounded belief that such terminology must not be used without scare quotes and without carefully minimizing the extent of usage (as if sources like the academia of the English-speaking world, the BBC, The Guardian, and Reuters didn't use it often and without qualification). Following the restoration of my material by others, Supreme Deliciousness [61] added an excessive number of labels to show their personal dissatisfaction that such terminology exists and is used in reliable sources, proclaiming that they were a "large amount of falsehoods and historical falsifications added into article".

Overall, I do not think this user's user's contributions to this article space have been an improvement, bar maybe one or two. Surely a net negative to the project? GPinkerton (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Complete ridiculous wall of text and misrepresentation of the diffs and my editing history. I'm not even gonna bother with a reply. If any admin is wondering about any specific edit I have made, then bring that diff forward and i will reply to that admin only. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to take action against User:GPinkerton

Vandalism: According to admin consensus here and relevant talk page discussion here, User:GPinkerton doesn't understand what vandalism means. An admin thought they should be indefinitely blocked from editing until they show understanding and retract their remarks.

Edit warring

1. In 6 March 2020, they edit warred on Bulgaria during World War II: [62], [63], [64].
   • They were warned by the other party here (among other warnings).
2. In 9 May 2020, they edit warred on Basilica: [65], [66], [67].
   • They were warned by the other party here.
   • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as no violation (of 3RR in particular). A warning was issued to respect BRD. See here.
3. In 15-16 May 2020, they edit warred on Catholicity: [68], [69], [70] (manually).
   • They were warned by the other party here.
4. In 28 June 2020, they were blocked for 48h for edit-warring on Vashti: [71], [72], [73] (manual), [74].
   • See the relevant report at WP:AN3 here.
   • They appealed the block twice, being declined once and accepted the other.
5. In 24 July 2020, they edit warred on Hagia Sophia: [75], [76].
   • They were warned by the other party here and later by an admin here.
   • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as content dispute. The closing admin thought it qualifies for a block, if not confounded by other parties involved.
6. In 28 July 2020, they edit warred on Mehmed the Conqueror: [77], [78].
   • They were informally warned by a third party here.
7. In 26 September 2020, they edit warred on Constantine the Great and Christianity over which English spelling variety should be used: [79], [80].
   • They were informally warned by an admin here.
8. In 19 November 2020, they were blocked again, this time for 24h, for edit warring on Murder of Samuel Paty: [81], [82], [83], [84].
   • The blocking admin sought consensus for the block in light of an appeal by GPinkerton. Consensus was granted unanimously.
9. In 21 November 2020, they edit warred again on Murder of Samuel Paty: [85] and [86] (manual).

Ad hominem and harassment

1. In The Holocaust in Bulgaria, they said: Can you read?
2. At 17:40, 12 May 2020, they were warned of harassment and WP:OUTING for disclosing another user's real name.
3. In Talk:Hagia Sophia, they said: a clear mark of someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
4. During a discussion with me in Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty, they said: Is English your first language?
   • See my reply.
5. In their own talk page, they addressed me and other editors who disagreed with them as a lobby and then as vandals who are involved in groupthink and me in particular as an anti-blasphemy ringleader who is weaseling [scattered, among other insults, throughout their prolonged comment] (just because I discussed on Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty that Charlie Hebdo Cartoons were [sic] controversial and that their publication can be attributed as a motive for the terrorist, for which I filed 2 RfC).
   • I tried to point out their uncivility here. They deleted my remarks, in opposition to WP:DELTALK.

Nonadherence to BRD: GPinkerton has a long-lasting habit of not stopping editing to start discussion, in opposition to WP:BRD. Here are some example disputes:

1. In Bulgaria during World War II, as shown above. The other party started discussion here.
2. In The Holocaust in Bulgaria, a voluminous dispute as shown here. The other party started discussion here.
3. In Basilica, as shown above. The other party started discussion here.
4. In Catholicity, as shown above. A third party started discussion here.
5. In Vashti, which led to the block shown above. The other party started discussion here.
6. In Hagia Sophia, as shown above. The other party started discussion here and here and an external admin did here.
7. In Murder of Samuel Paty, which led to the block shown above. The other party first started discussion here and then yours truly did here.
   • Having been unblocked, despite the 2 RfC already ongoing, GPinkerton maintained editing, in some cases contestably (see these automatic and manual reverts). Only some strange-sounding OR was given in edit summaries (clarification is a type of amendment?). Discussions were never started on the page by GPinkerton.

Canvassing

1. At 19:02 12 May 2020, they were warned of canvassing.
   • While admitting the canvassing they did, it turned out they didn't know what that is: thought the policy of not rephrasing RfC content while notifying of them is a bizzare stricture.
2. At 09:32, 19 November 2020, they accused me of canvassing another editor for a discussion.
   • The discussion about which they expressed their concerns was started more than a day after the diff they used as evidence.
   • The diff used as evidence was an RfC template used as-is to notify a contributor previously involved in discussion of a whole other section different than what they expressed concerns about, which wasn't even an RfC.
   • The purportedly canvassed contributor first edited the article at 21:35, 19 October 2020, while my first edit was at 20:13, 23 October 2020.
   • all of which meaning that either GPinkerton probably still doesn't understand what canvassing is or is using such arbitrary charge disruptively.

Proposal and final comment: Although I admittedly lack the necessary experience to argue for what the most appropriate action is, it'd still be plausible for me to propose either a serious warning or a (topic) ban for GPinkerton. For the time being, I'd specifically stress on a one-page ban for Murder of Samuel Paty. They have been blocked for edit warring there two days ago, but still went back to disruptive editing today. As of now, GPinkerton has heavily engaged in 4 discussions on the page, yet zero of which was started by them. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No, this editor is just cultivating an ideologically motivated battleground mentality in the hope of foisting their anti blasphemy campaign to censor Wikipedia in general and the Murder of Samuel Paty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular, where an ill-concieved RfC is not reinforcing Khidr's agenda of equivocation. This vendetta against me is just bad tempered sour grapes. GPinkerton (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It is also telling to note that in all the misdemeanours alleged so vindictively the topics all involved editors who consider themselves Wikilawyers repressing the Almighty gratis (or on one instance the National Honour in the Second World War). So it's peculiar to affirm that because neutrality and historical reality often angers those with a crusading bent or a persecution complex, that the whole project should cave into the religious special interest group and proud Balkans republics who consider it a article of the national faith that their (Axis-allied) country never laid a finger on its Jewish people. This desire to express sympathy for the killer of Samuel Paty is and apportion blame to the victim is, I submit, yet another example of exactly this style of vindictive POV pushing which I have oftentimes resisted. GPinkerton (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Editors should also be aware that despite the claim above, I was blocked for little over 3 hours, not 48. The editor is clearly trying to intrude their self-declared belief into the article, and is upset that other editors do not agree, and is apparently also upset that opposition to his views was not removed permanently. This report consists of nothing but evidence of grievance on his part. GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you just came off a block and have been blocked twice now in recent months for edit warring, and quite a few experienced editors at WP:AN (including me) have expressed concern about your misunderstanding of how vandalism is defined on Wikipedia. Can you please address these concerns and make a firm commitment to abandon edit warring and false accusations of vandalism? Opposing nationalist POV pushing is well and good, but you must use the proper tools when doing so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Gladly. Still, it should be fairly obvious that this report is motivated by the OP's desire to be rid of dissenting voices and his dissatisfaction with the progress of his RfC, and not by anything I have done that has not already been discussed aplenty long ago. I have also only taken up contributing much to editing this March or so. I've seen users that have been blocked annually or more for fifteen years running (or thereabouts) ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If you don't understand what was wrong with what you just said, I'm afraid you're too inexperienced to be editing here (WP:CIR). --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, please expand on "gladly". I am very concerned that you chose to point out that other editors have been blocked more than you. If the implication is that it is acceptable for an editor to be blocked once a year, then let me disabuse you of that notion. It is unacceptable. Most productive editors have never been blocked, and I need you to explain your current understanding of edit warring and vandalism, in light of your recent blocks and the feedback on vandalism you received at AN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I only mention that particular editor because I thought he might turn up to add his uninvited remarks. Below, you can see he did. I was blocked for engaging in an edit war begun by Debresser, who was himself blocked (nth time). Ever since, he has stalked and harassed my every turn, dragging his contrived grievances like a ball and chain and rattling it whenever he thinks someone will be inclined to listen to his hypocrisy. I urge action. The OP here appears to be pursuing the same warpath, likewise driven on by the flame of pious wrath having been crossed in a content dispute. To answer your question, yes I do get it, and yes I recognize that that my edits before were not reverting vandalism, only ill-sourced NPOV violations to be deleted by someone else. And no, I was no suggesting I thought it was a acceptable, though I think the idea pursued below is a rich seam of hypocrisy whose merits and motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves 🤣. GPinkerton (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, please be aware that any editor can comment on this noticeboard and nobody needs an invitation. Nobody can possibly force you to edit war. Comments like this do not help your cause, and neither do emojis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm only pointing out that these editors' attacks on me are all hypocritical and motivated by a desire to win their own battles (in every case they're complaining about, consensus has turned against the affronted editors) and not by concern for Wikipedia policy or for improving the encyclopaedia. I have never suggested that I was forced to edit war. This report is all a stale set of grievances being used as a tactic win a content dispute against consensus. There is nothing new here. GPinkerton (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, the "attack and denounce the OP" tactic is not a good look for you. This discussion is about your behavior. Start a different thread with convincing diffs about the OP if you wish. Try self-reflection and a firm and explicit commit to avoid edit warring and false accusations of vandalism instead. That is far more likely to lead to a good outcome for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 I am the OP really, this is just a pile on section (see above, and the most recent archive page). I have already explicitly committed to avoid edit warring and false accusations of vandalism, and I do so again. GPinkerton (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Permanent block

Gpinkerton has been involved in conflicts almost every month of the last year:

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#March_2020
2. User_talk:GPinkerton#April_2020
3. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020
4. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_2
5. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_3
6. User_talk:GPinkerton#June_2020
7. User_talk:GPinkerton#July_2020
8. User_talk:GPinkerton#ANI-notice (August)
9. User_talk:GPinkerton#ANI_2 (September)

He has been on WP:AN3 a lot too:

1. AN3 Archive 408
2. AN3 Archive 411
3. AN3 Archive 413

And another 4 reports he openend (1,2,3,4), which also clearly shows how bad he gets along with people.

He has been on WP:ANI too:

1. ANI Archive 1047
2. ANI Archive 1044

And another 3 reports he opened (1, 2, 3).

And now this report. And all of that for the last year of a little over 2 years of editing on Wikipedia. Please do the right thing and indefinitely block this user. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Speak of the devil and he shall appear, as they say. Funny, I just had you in mind when I was thinking of the longest block log from the most committed edit warrior I'd ever seen, and your previous relentless attempts to take vengeance against me for slandering you favourite biblical characters with neutral scholarship. Do you think this will be your lucky day? Your unwanted contributions has been noted as such on occasions before this one. Honestly, I think there are excellent grounds to permanently block Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GPinkerton (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Debresser is a problem editor who should have been banned years ago. Doesn't change the fact that he's correct in this case. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are correct GPinkerton, then Debresser should be blocked as well, not instead of you. So all you did was give another example of incivility. El Millo (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Random passerby comment - X: "Y should be banned!" followed by Y: "No, X should be banned!" to begin a discussion is likely not going to lead to a good end. Interaction-ban and topic-ban them both, IMO. Zaathras (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I ran into this editor a while ago by chance, since we do not usually edit the same topics. The experience was highly unpleasant and left me with the clear impression that this person is not ready for community editing. Have not ran into them since, but their talkpage was still on my watchlist because of that incident. Debresser (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

See? Couldn't resist going out of his way to pursue a vendetta he has engineered for himself to pursue. And yes, banning Debresser is a fine suggestion. GPinkerton (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser has listed ANI reports I made about vandalism which resulted in proper action against others, and is trying to claim this as grounds for his continued campaign to insert biblical literalism into Wikipedia being allowed to continue while my contributions are barred. This is really very silly and ironical. GPinkerton (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton has shown that he either does not understand Wikipedia policies or he has chosen not to follow them, he also has a history of making disparaging comments about other users. Both could be overlooked if he had shown the willingness to change but that it not the case. Hardyplants (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per personal unpleasant experience with this editor and proven, long-term battleground mentality, resulting in the conclusion that this editor is not ready for community editing. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for perma blocking GPinkerton from Wikipeida. The user has recently wreaked havoc at the Syrian kurdistan article introducing a large amount of nationalistic pov edits. The user refuses to engage in a cooperative manner at the talkpage.[87][88] There is no end in sight to this users disruptive behavior.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Editors should again note the POV pushing causing the issues here is in large part the responsibility of the editors above, who are quite desperate that their respective bias be reflected in Wikivoice. This has already been discussed to death by the tendentiousness of these editors. Spreeme Delciousness is avowedly determined to suppress NPOV in relation to the Kurds, and has explained their crusade a number of times. GPinkerton (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Do you mean "siteban"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support The user lacks the necessary civility to be able to cooperate and compromise. He resorts to insults and attacks and have a battleground mentality. I for once could not restrain myself and treated him as he treats others, then suggested that he show respect in order to get it back, for which he replied with: I have no need of what you imagine to be respect from yourself. This user is impossible to argue with, as for him, any editor that oppose him is full of nonesense and the only accepted arguments are his own. See these diffs where he calls every argument he does not like "non-sense", or reject it without any willingness to understand other parties' arguments: 1, 2, 3, here he outright reject to discuss despite being urged to!- In short, this editor, with his rude childish behaviour and battleground mentality is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Just read his replies to other users here in the compliant, and it will give you a clear image of how he goes around here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This is another editor whose edits have only been to pursue the bizarre conspiracy theory that Syrian Kurdistan does not exist or should not be referred to as such in the encyclopaedia. It is hardly surprising that this editor, whom I have reported for tendentious editing, would seek to have me removed. GPinkerton (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have taken a look at the evidence presented and although there are certainly some behavioral problems and some CIR issues, I see nothing that would justify an indef block or a site ban at this point. Much of the case consists of heated content disputes which is not, by itself, actionable. Things like "Can you read?" in an edit summary qualify as mild incivility but certainly not harassment. Some other diffs indicate more substantial episodic incivility but not harassment. Of the three ANI threads opens regarding GPinkerton, one [89] was quickly closed as "No violation". The third [90] was closed as "Content dispute, no action". The second, filed by Debresser on June 27, 2020, [91] was closed as 48 hour blocks for both parties. IMO, Debresser's participation in this thread and his presenting of evidence above has already poisoned the well in this discussion. His own behaviour appears to be at least as problematic in these disputes and his block record is much much longer, plus there is a pile of Arbcom restrictions on top of that. If there are any indef blocks to be handed out as a result of this thread, I think it would have to be to both of them, but I don't believe that's a good idea. ANI is a poor venue for handlinging entrenched POV disputes of this kind, they belong at ARBCOM and that's where the parties should be dirtected. We might consider a two-way interaction ban between GPinkerton and Debresser. Some of the other participants in this discussion so far appear to be deeply involved in the said content disputes themselves, and to have POV agendas of their own. E.g. the first thing one sees at the talk page of Supreme Deliciousness is them strengously arguing that West Jerusalem is not located in Israel, User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2020/October#West Jerusalem. Enough said. Nsk92 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Looking a little closer at some of the diffs provided by the OP under 'Edit warring', diff number 1 [92] for Bulgaria during World War II appears to be an effort by GPinkerton to clean up language that had been white-washing the level of complicity of the WWII Bulgarian government in the persecution of Bulrarian Jews at the behest of the Nazis. While edit warring is never a good idea, I have much less sympathy for anything that has even a slightest whiff of Holocaust denial. Seeing these diffs being used as exhibit A in this report reduces the credibility of the report in my eyes quite a bit. As I said above, if the parties really want to pursue this matter further, they should file an Arbcom case and duke it out there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI that article, Bulgaria during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), before move I performed, had the title Military history of Bulgaria during World War II, which was used a vehicle for exactly what Nsk92 suggests. GPinkerton (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) The page The Holocaust in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), until I rewrote nearly all of it and initiated a move discussion with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, gloried under the extraordinary title Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews. Between the two pages, there was no mention of Bulgaria's involvement beyond "the Nazis made the tsar do it". GPinkerton (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nsk92: Just for the record, the sequence of events given above is a plain timeline, meaning that the order of their display shall imply no priority for their significance. To think of the first event as exhibit A in spite of the dates being shown is less a consequence of logic, I'm afraid, than empathy. I'd still appreciate that for the sensitive nature of the topic, but I don't think such emotional bias should ordain admins judgments of adherence to policy. Long story short, I believe we should make sure we aren't withstanding dangerous POV pushing with POV pushing of yet another sort. Guardians of content in a specific area can wreak havoc on other topics. As is well-known, Wikipedia is meant to contain all human knowledge. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• • It should be noted Supreme Deliciousness was at ArbCom 10 years ago, being given a topic ban for national/ethnic disruption to the encyclopaedia's coverage of middle east. Presumably, they have been at it the whole duration of the Syrian Civil War. GPinkerton (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Nsk92. My only experience so far of GPinkerton has been around Syria articles, where they have been smiting the nationalists hip and thigh (and deservedly so). GPinkerton is a breath of fresh air who has a commendable impatience with those who would subvert this encyclopedia for their own ends. As for the rest, I get the strong impression that GPinkerton is more sinned against than sinning. Konli17 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha. Funny how user Konli17 can accuse others of being nationalists. Look at their user page! This user (Konli17) currently has FOUR WP:ANEW cases against them: here, here, here andhere, edit-warring alongside GPinkerton. This is a great timely reminder to admins to look into Konli17's edit-warring behavior and close these cases. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment User: Assem Khidhr edit warred on Murder of Samuel Paty. (the schoolteacher beheaded for teaching his classes the classes on free expression a history of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as required by the national curriculum. He repeatedly sought to change the text to his preferred version, here, here again, and here again. I was blocked for 24 hours ... GPinkerton (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support This user has aggressive battleground attitude, and i don't see if he will calm down.Shadow4dark (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose indef but GPinkerton, I suggest you take very seriously the comments about incivility, edit warring, and learning to recognize vandalism that you've received here and other recent threads. Stop commenting on other editors' motivations. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Noted with thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Nsk92. I understand the frustration, and hope the involved editors will take a little break long enough to regain their proper editing composure. The advice given here is definitely good food for thought. Atsme 💬 📧 14:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nsk92. There's a whole lot of garbage behaviour in these subjects, and frankly, many of the editors commenting in support are themselves well on the way to blocks and topic bans for their own poor behaviour. On Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty alone there are two active RfCs concerning article content that many editors can't stop edit-warring over anyway; I'm considering full-protecting that article until the discussions conclude, or just handing everyone a limited partial block to deal with it. Broadly, I don't think any of this cesspool will be properly addressed without a full Arbcom case and investigation. I'm not impressed that Assem Khidhr quoted me at least twice out of context, both times that I see twisting my words to fit their narrative, and didn't think it would be worthwhile to notify me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  That having been said; @GPinkerton: your next ad hominem will be your last. Stop. Now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  GPinkerton: I strongly suggest that you step back from this entire thread for a while. You do have the right to defend yourself but the basic facts have already been brought out, and at this point some of your comments here are doing you more harm than good. Better let the discussion proceed at its own pace and have more uninvolved editors comment here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @Ivanvector: I'll make that clear. My understanding was that directly pinging an admin who was more likely to approve of one's proposal would be understood as pushy. In case you noticed, I also refrained from mentioning any other editor I quoted. I actually thought this would be understood as more professional, until your comment here. As for context, your first remark was relevant because you were almost the only admin to raise the concern I was bringing here: failing to understand a core policy, such as that of vandalism, is too dangerous that it deserves a block until otherwise is proven. Since your comment was split into two edits, I chose to link the second so that the first would thereby also show as prev, not to take anything out of context. I was also keen on addressing the entirety of it by the paraphrase until they show understanding and retract their remarks, lest it be understood that you're calling for a block whatsoever. Apropos of the 2nd quote, you being the closing admin, the comment you left post-closure was at the centre of the thread. I paraphrased it as explained below. Finally, I don't think I'd be having any extra energy and time to go for ArbCom. I'll merely withdraw from contributing side-by-side with GPinkerton, hoping that what I've proposed here will be enough both to alert the community and to urge GPinkerton to cease. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment What's a "permanent block"? The only thing that can really be called that are certain WMF bans which cannot be appealed. (AFAIK, the WMF doesn't specifically say what results in such an unappealable ban but it's probably mostly child protection reasons.) If someone wanted such ban, they would need to speak to the WMF. We could do an indefinite community site ban here. But indefinite is not supposed to mean permanent. While it's hard to imagine some long term socks who have cause untold disruption coming back, if they stop and 10 years down the track they make a very good appeal, perhaps they'll be allowed back. In any case, if we're discussing implementing the ban here it's unlikely it's reached that level. More likely it's a regular community indef site ban. Such site bans often can be successfully appealed in 6 months to 1 year. If it's just an admin indefinite block and doesn't involve any socking there may not even be a minimum appeal period although it would depend on what happened before and the chances an admin can be convinced the editor will change. This isn't just an aside since when making proposals, it helps if you have some understanding of community norms since otherwise people like me think the evidence isn't worth looking at. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nil Einne: Please note that the editor who opened this subsection is different from the OP, which is me. I actually didn't even vote here. Yet, while I don't approve of its content, moving it to another section by me would very likely be interpreted as aggressive. Deleting it altogether would be even disruptive. It's readers' responsibility, I believe, to resolve the ambiguity. It takes a look at the signatures. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Assem Khidhr: I don't understand your point. Although I'm sometimes careless with the word OP to mean the OP of a subthread or even unmarked subdiscussion, I don't see where I said anything about OP or original poster in my comment above. And as far as I can tell, User:Debresser is the one who use term "permanent block" and also who made the proposal I'm commenting on namely to "permanently blocked" GPinkerton [93] because "Gpinkerton has been involved in conflicts almost every month" and "He has been on WP:AN3 a lot" etc with only a passing mention of "the report" under which they started this proposal. There are a bunch of other sub discussions here including the original starting thread by you where you suggested action without suggesting any specific action since you weren't sure what (which is fine). I make no comment on them. It seems to be the quicker we dismiss this nonsense proposal, the better we can deal with whatever other issues may or may not exist. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • @Nil Einne: I thought it was the evidence I put forth that you believe isn't worth looking at, as if it was being scapegoated for this subsection. Pardon me then. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a permanent block, because GPinkerton has made many valuable contributions to wikipedia. But GPinkerton should be given a warning of a topic ban on "Muslims and controversy" if they continue their behavior. Consider:

• At WP:RSN, GPinkerton questioned the reliability of widely published academics, in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim"[94] or "true-believers"[95]. An academic's religion (or race, gender etc) must never be a factor in their WP:Reliability, period.
• At Talk:Hagia_Sophia/Archive_5#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_4_August_2020, GPinkerton pushed a ridiculous and false anti-Muslim story (Drmies described it as "anti-Muslim propaganda") and edit-warred to have it inserted into the article (warning against said edit-warring).
• At Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty GPinkerton pushed, what WhinyTheYounger called, the idea that "Islam is incompatible with free expression", refusing to recognize that is both possible to be a moderate Muslim who condemns the murder but also condemns the publication of the cartoons.
• Anytime GPinkerton disagrees with someone, they make allegations of extremism. When GPinkerton edit warred against three users, they accused their opponents of a "campaign to enforce blasphemy law on Wikipedia"[96]. Later they accused Assem Khidhr of being an "anti-blasphemy ringleader"[97]. This creates a toxic atmosphere for Muslim Wikipedians.VR _talk 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• The first point of this is absurd. The story is a well-known cultural myth, and at this point it is really very silly that even though the material exists throughout Wikipedia, Vice regent has argued that it should not appear on the article that deals with the building in which it is set and which is a crucial part of the well-known trope. Oddly, Vice regent also tried hard to force a phraseology that emphasized the wrongs of the 4th Crusade in looting the building than the Turks, even though the same school-age history (without fotnotes) suggested by him as the source also states that Mehmed the Conqueror personally destroyed the altar, a legend Vice regent mysteriously never sought to include in Wikivoice. I pointed this out on the talkpage and Vice regent abandoned the dialogue. Drmies was in point of fact wrong to describe the tale, which was accepted as fact by everyone in the West from 1453 to Voltaire, as anti-Muslim rather than anti-Turk since the ideological purpose of the story is to complete the legends surrounding the origin of the Turks in Greek folklore and the fulfilment of prophecies originating in the 7th-century Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, which itself is predicated on seeing the predicted fall of Constantinople as an event at the end of time in which the Muslim armies (understood as deviant Christians) are the agency of God's destruction of worldly things. The first part of this is explained in the article. Wikipedia is not censored, and nether should the history of the middle ages be bowdlerized because of the feelings of people might be offended at non-events centuries ago. Vice regent is wrong to imply that I presented the information as true; the wording I used stressed the attribution to introduced, Wikilinked medieval people and chroniclers and unambiguously stated they were apocryphal. Vice regent you should amend your comment on this matter. GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• The second point is also unfounded. Vice regent is wrong to suggest WhinyTheYounger was right to characterize my arguments in this way. I never mentioned Islam, or Muslims, until I replied to this very allegation. Vice regent and WhinyTheYounger confouded Islam and Islamism, an illiberal political ideology rooted in theocracy which wholly different from any religion itself.
• The third point is just exaggeration and misrepresentation and again confuses Islamist ideology with Muslims. Can you find any articles involving discussions which do not deal with terrorist attacks motivated by Islamist doctrine on blasphemy law which show any evidence of such a claim? Seeking to kill because of cartoon images is ipso facto extremist, and is seeking to ban images on the grounds of blasphemy is ipso facto extreme and in dire contravention of the concept of human rights. This cannot be gainsaid. GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose After I engaged in a lengthy back-and- forth with GPinkerton, the editor has committed to avoiding edit warring and false accusations of vandalism. The editor should be warned against personal attacks and sweeping generalizations problematic editing about Islam, and should continue editing with a less vehement and dogmatic tone, embracing the letter and the spirit of the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have struck through "sweeping generalizations" at the request of GPinkerton here and in discussion on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: Thank you for your comment but please amend it; I have never made sweeping generalizations about Islam; that's not true at all. Islamism≠Islam and Islamists≠Muslims and I have never suggested otherwise. GPinkerton (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, who is a trusted editor and who is not a Muslim, concluded that you were engaging in "anti-Muslim propaganda" at Hagia Sophia, so I will not amend that part of my comment. The amendment that I will make is to say that you should also be warned against tendentious editing including bludgeoning and posting endless walls of text. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: Drmies did not say I was engaging in "anti-Muslim propaganda", they said that story is anti-Muslim propaganda, which is a statement about a medieval legend I have nowhere presented as fact. GPinkerton (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• You argued at length to keep that false story with all its lurid details in the article. Q.E.D.. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• NED! I continue to argue that the well-known legend, which was repeated by everyone in Renaissance Europe by everyone from the pope on down, deserves discussion in the article. It is treated of elsewhere in Wikipedia and "anti-Muslims" have nothing to do with it. I repeat further that I never once gave even the slightest suggestion the story was anything other than false. The two sackings of Hagia Sophia are massive events in cultural history and to pass over the impact that one of them while of treating the other in depth is weird and imbalanced. The lurid details are an inevitable part of the Renaissance need to see the event as a mirror of the fall of Troy. How not to include the story may be seen at articles where it has considerably less relevance: the Fall of Constantinople and Constantinople articles. In neither case is it attributed to mediaeval people, as in the text I used, and in neither instance are the internally contradictory and mythic elements described or explained as was done in the text I proposed. I am not going to reveal my position on religion and I am not going to describe myself as a subject matter expert on Islam, even though my second postgraduate degree is in Islamic studies from a world-leading university and have a much greater understanding than many other Muslims, but I am not going to accept labelling as "anti-Muslim", that's just not possible. I realize I've said a lot on this thread but this point really must be stressed and brought home. GPinkerton (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban, support warning - for reasons explained by others above. It's not a siteban-level problem, but the concerns raised here are real, and the problematic conduct should not be repeated. Lev¡vich 17:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• I have recently seen GPinkerton do some useful stuff, and in fact I was wondering why I remembered their name: August seems like years ago. But when I look over that discussion again, at Talk:Hagia Sophia/Archive 5, yeah--if that is how GPinkerton operates, that's severely disruptive. It may have started here. Note "apocryphal" where the unimpeachable secondary source says false (and here--look for "propaganda", "entirely spurious"). Read the archived talk page discussion again, if you like, and you will see denialism and editorial interpretation to pursue a POV of sorts in all its glory. And GPinkerton makes just really elementary mistakes: a story is told with some fabricated details added to it, and other writers repeat it--and somehow that makes them independent witnesses, it seems. What you will also see is bludgeoning: who wants to get involved in a discussion with that editor?

  So yes, I stand by the point that I made at the time, that there was some serious POV editing and manipulation of sources happening in article space, and a kind of intransigence littered with misunderstandings on the talk page where the purpose appeared to be to get everyone bogged down and simply give up. I think I would support a topic ban from Islam-related topics. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I again strongly deny this allegation and repeat once more that to speak of me being "anti-Muslim" is a clear oxymoron which I ask Drmies to retract. In addition, I can only point out again that I never once made any suggestion that it was true and have explained this before and repeatedly. The story is at present repeated as though true at Fall of Constantinople, a fact I have nothing to do with, and the way I described it has never even suggested that it was true, a fact I pointed out at the time. I have not once suggested for moment anything like the claim that different textual witnesses suggest multiple eyewitness accounts, and it's not fair to suggest otherwise Drmies. I tried to point this out at the time and expressed a desire that better wording could be worked on, but my appeals went unheeded. GPinkerton (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Here, and on my own talk page, GPinkerton claims I'm calling them "anti-Muslim". You all can see I said no such thing. I believe they have a POV which is an impediment to neutral editing, yes, but I have not accused them of being a Muslim hater or whatever. I do not understand why, in a discussion that may well lead to sanctions, they continue to be so ... well, what is it? Belligerent? Careless? Unencyclopedic and uncollegial, that certainly. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked a bit into the Syrian/Kurdistan articles this week, where there is currently a great deal of feuding going on, I can't help but notice that some Support & Oppose votes here are falling into sides I see edit warring on articles. I hope this decision as serious as a siteban would not be overly influenced by editors active in disputes in this subject area. This is a decision that should be evaluated by uninvolved editors and admins. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • My feelings exactly. My impression is that if we are talking about POV related topic bans, several other participants in this discussion deserve them at least as much as GPinkerton. I can't support a topic ban for GPinkerton in this situation, where his accusers escape similar scruitiny and are allowed to sit in judgement over GPinkerton here. IMO, POV related topic bans require careful and slow examination of evidence by uninvolved editors. ANI is completely unsuited for that purpose. If there isn't an active Arbitration case with Discretionary Sanctions in place for which an AE request can be made, then a new WP:ARC request should be filed and any relevant topic bans should be handed out there. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban I've had sharp disagreements with GPinkerton, who can certainly be very rude, acerbic & agressive. I notice most of the diffs at the top come from May or earlier, & I think he has calmed down somewhat. Some of the editors complaining the loudest are in no position to cast stones. At the same time he can be a useful & energetic force for improving WP. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, per Konli17 and Nsk92. - Daveout(talk) 02:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the user has serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues and persistently edits disruptively. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Another editor from the Syrian Kurdistan dispute. GPinkerton (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, valuable contributor who upholds NPOV in multiple contentious topic areas. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Stong Support Indef block. I hate to say this, but this user is not here to contribute positively, collaborate or debate in a civilized way. Even worse, they have a confrontational mentality powered by an aggressive behavior and personal attacks. Out of nowhere and with no prior encounter anywhere, this user opened a case against me simply for disagreeing on topics. Well, that might not sound too bad per se, but the problem is that this user reverts to personal attacks and rude wording when their argument fails. I am quoting some of their personal attacks in the one thread they opened against me:
• Any look at any of the works will show that the editor's POV is divorced from the real world, and is apparently vocally, partisan as regards the al-Assad regime and its opponents. 02:59, 11 November 2020 (side note: I am really offended by this accusation. In my 10 years here I never edited in favor of Assad, and I challenge Pinkerton to show one single piece of evidence to support their baseless claim).
• Rank hypocrisy. I've expanded with quotes since you're too unwilling to lift a finger to pull the wool from your own eyes and read a book. 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Can you read? Or do you only spew? 08:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• The idea the idea it didn't exist before 2011 is as laughable as the editor's understanding of epistemology 08:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

In conclusion, the edit-warring behavior of Pinkerton is obvious in every article they edit. I think an indef block, although severe, is sometimes unavoidable like in this case. Otherwise, a really-long ban would be necessary. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Here we have an case of actual ideological opponents clamoring for someone to be sitebanned based on their POV, and that they view the editor as obstructive due to their opposition. This isn't in the usual way that we casually throw around the term "ideological opponents", and I don't say this lightly. While it should be fully acknowledged that there are real issues with GPinkerton's editing, especially in terms of their combativeness, hopefully they can take advice on board, and possibly change that. But I echo the statement of Konli17, that they have been "more sinned against than sinning". This issue is largely more about assorted editors with strong nationalist sentiments invested in this issue, and an entrenched view regarding ethnicity and national identity in the region. For Supreme Deliciousness to say that this is a case of "Kurdish Nationalists" pushing a POV is absurd, and indicative of what I'm talking about. I'll also note that other editors have given to calling good-faith edits "vandalism" in their edit summaries when reverting. Drama aside, this is not a controversial term outside of internal Middle-Eastern politics, where fears of a nascent Kurdish irredentism is a persistent bogeyman. GPinkerton has been trying to maintain what I think is a consistent NPOV in an embattled environment, and has skirted the line of problematic editing, but I think this is more calling out fire in a crowded room, when there's just a few smouldering coals. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Note that I've had to repost this due to the formatting issues here. And if it wasn't clear, I'm primarily talking about the edits in Syrian Kurdistan. Their exchange with Drmies is unnecessarily combative, and a mischaracterization. I have no opinion on Vice regent's suggestion of a topic ban on Islam-related articles at this time, as I'm not sure that POV editing is a persistent, intransigent issue in that topic area. That's a very broad topic, even if it were narrowly construed, and I certainly don't think this is likewise an issue in every subject that they edit, calling for a siteban. But they could do with a formal warning for their behaviour, generally. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment What strikes me the hardest is how the attention of both admins and users simply shifted into a peripheral comment, albeit significantly less organized and poorly structured, only because it can be tackled in the form of a simply binary survey rather than a nuanced discussion. This is probably a stark example of WP:STRAW. It also shows, unluckily, how much tolerance is left in the community for topics deemed as potential flame wars and how many presumptions are in place about editors still interested therein. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Response to GPinkerton

I wrote this in response to GPinkerton comment above:

User: Assem Khidhr edit warred on Murder of Samuel Paty. (the schoolteacher beheaded for teaching his classes the classes on free expression a history of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as required by the national curriculum. He repeatedly sought to change the text to his preferred version, here, here, and here. I was blocked for 24 hours ... User:GPinkerton (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It was moved to avoid interference with the other discussion. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I'm truly glad you finally started quoting diffs, though you didn't even bother to put them in a chronological order and only presented them after a plethora of ad hominem claims. Here's a comprehensive timeline of what happened at Murder of Samuel Paty leading me to take notice of GPinkerton's behavior and leading to their temporary blocking:

1. 16:23, 10 November 2020 GPinkerton introduces the statement Protests were held in X against Macron's defence of human rights. (X being Syria, Iraq, and Libya) in the article for the 1st time.
2. 05:06, 18 November 2020 I came across the vague statement. Being WP:BOLD, I tried to reword the reporting of the protests in Syria section with WP:ATTRIBUTION to Macron.
3. 05:33, 18 November 2020‎ I noticed the same statement verbatim in Lybia and Iraq sections. I did the same replacement, gave rationale, and omitted attrbution for redundancy. (notice that the two edits were consecutive without any intervening edits by another user).
4. 06:52, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton reverts my edit.
5. 07:07, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton further deletes the attribution to Macron, qualifying it as editorializing.
6. 07:10, 18 November 2020 Proceeding in BRD, I reverted GPinkerton, citing in my summary The Guardian's article with an exact wording (my 1st revert).
7. 07:10-07:36, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton makes a series of edits elsewhere in the article: [98], [99], [100].
8. 05:44, 19 November 2020‎ Almost 24h later, GPinkerton reinstates the same statement witout any discussion.
9. 08:32, 19 November 2020 Moved by the absence of WP:REVEXP and BRD WP:STONEWALLING, I further reverted GPinkerton again while alluding to the manipulation of WP:3RR as per WP:SPADE (my 2nd revert). This was indeed a violation of the exemplary 1RR.
10. 08:54, 19 November 2020 GPinkerton reverts again.
11. 09:11, 19 November 2020 Further proceeding in BRD, I started a discussion 17 mins after their 2nd revert. I declared my intent to withdraw from any further reverts.
12. 09:14-09:51, 19 November 2020 Another editor tries to wP:HANDLE here. They were reverted by GPinkerton here.
13. 09:58-10:46, 19 November 2020 Yet another editor opposes GPinkerton in [101], [102], and [103], only to be reverted by GPinkerton in [104], [105], [106], [107]. This user was warned of edit warring by the blocking admin here, for which they apologized here.
14. 11:07, 19 November 2020 GPinkerton is blocked for 24h for edit warring, as shown previously.

Knowing that I'm not much well-known in the community here yet, unlike GPinkerton, who was actually praised by some admins in the AN thread I mentioned before, I'd also like to mention a piece of data in refutation of the endless disparaging remarks they made. Although I shouldn't be in a position to defend myself, I do think that such fervent demagogic attacks with an overwhelming amount of proofs by assertion can end up leaving some implicit associations. I firstly encourage anyone to browse through my edit history. I'm a Muslim Egyptian/Sudanese pharmacist who is interested in social sciences. I wander through the project trying to utilize my more or less diverse background to give back to the encyclopedia. In fact, Murder of Samuel Paty was the first and only flame war article that I involved with. However, please note that in contradiction to the claims of campaigning and lobbying:

• My authorship of Murder of Samuel Paty is only 0.1% vs. a gigantic first-ranked 29.8% for GPinkerton (evidence here).
• I first edited Murder of Samuel Paty in 22:13, 23 October 2020 (See here) vs. 02:56, 10 November 2020 for GPinkerton (See here). I stayed longer yet added way less.

Finally, here is a comment about my attitude on the page from a disinterested user whom I've never contacted and who never engaged in relevant disputes previously and just came for the RfC. Thanks. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Assem Khidhr: Saying you have taken less action to improve the page than an editor you are trying to have excluded from editing seems like an odd perspective to me. As I've said, Khidhr is here arguing I should be blocked twice for the same edit war in which he himself violated 3RR. As point of fact, your claim that I was in contravention of policy by reverting your unsolicited comments on my talk page are incorrect, and I am under no obligation either to reply or to retain your remarks where you put them. GPinkerton (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A further consideration is that the protesting extremists, some of whom are now in jail for glorifying terrorism, are protesting about the implicit refusal of the French head of state to throw out his country constitutional freedoms and pander to their demands for Paty's head. They are not riled up that Macron said as much, but more about the fact it was victim that got the legion d'honneur and not, as they would see it, his martyred murderer. Trying to pin the blame for Paty's killing on Macron is what Anzarov did in his martyrdom video, but we should not be crediting his perspective. Note that all the sources say the protests were directed at France with a boycott of French things imposed in some areas. The protests reflect the status of free speech in a democracy an its incompatibility with the concept of blasphemy law, not anything Macron has done to bring about this century-long constitutional situation. In any case these arguments do not benefit from rehearsal here, as they have already been considered and dealt with appropriately. GPinkerton (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Debresser interaction ban

Assem Khidhr referred to an incident at AN3 (archived here, Assem's link didn't work) in which I declined to block GPinkerton because it was an obvious "gotcha" report by the editor they were involved in the same dispute with (the "you shot first" theory of edit warring, which I do not subscribe to), but Assem failed to interpret from my comments that I also declined to block because Debresser appeared out of nowhere just to cause trouble. They torpedoed the report so that it was incomprehensible, while their entire argument for sanctions was that GPinkerton should be blocked in that instance only because they had been blocked before. By Debresser's own admission here they "do not usually edit the same topics" and "not ran into [GPinkerton] since" (referring to some incident I don't know about but clearly long in the past), yet here is Debresser for the second time in six months jumping on a dispute they're not involved with in any way to attack GPinkerton. That is harassment, and since Debresser won't knock it off on their own, they should be banned from interacting with GPinkerton. (Edited to add: this is a proposal for a one-way interaction ban) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Ivanvector: this is actually the third time Debresser has advanced this line of attack, once before on this noticeboard and once on my talkpage recently. GPinkerton (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Per Ivanvector's justification. As I understand it, the proposed ban is a one-way interaction ban; this point probably deserves to be made more explicit. Nsk92 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  I thought it was clear but yes, that's correct. Edited to be specific. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way. I'd oppose making it two-way, as this is clearly Debresser following GPinkerton around trying to bait him, not a two-way street. ‑ Iridescent 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I proposed a permanent block here for GPinkerton now, because at an earlier date admins, like Ivanvector, were not yet ready to see the underlying problematic attitude of GPinkerton. It seems that admins already see what I meant then. That justifies my post. If one were not allowed to ask for sanctions against a longtime problematic editor, then Wikipedia is really in trouble! Ergo, I strongly oppose an interaction ban based for this reasoning. There is no need for an interaction ban on other pages, since we don't as a rule edit the same articles. As stated above by Cullen238,[108] forums like WP:ANI are not restricted to admins, and anybody can post here, and Ivanvector's claim that I posted here "just to cause trouble" is a bad faith assumption. To the contrary, I posted here to try and make Wikipedia a better place. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I've seen the same almost spammy comment twice for now. On a side note, @Ivanvector:, my link above still works for me, as of now. Also, I did interpret and deliberately addressed what you mentioned in your comment by confounded by other parties involved. To reiterate, by "involved", I meant all the editors who were involved in the AN report, not only those who engaged in the edit war. Idk whether you read this part, but I'm honestly shocked you thought of it as a twist. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't punish editors for raising valid concerns. Lev¡vich 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Levivich that this isn't the appropriate time for a boomerang. Debresser was correct in bringing this to the community in light of the behavioral issues and was filing a sensible and legitimate case. This iban proposal is redirecting the thread from the real problem at hand to unrelated and less significant matters. Krow750 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose While an editor should not follow another everywhere, there is a deep root for these reports against GPinkerton: his incivility. This is what should be addressed. This isnt really about the content disputes, but the provocation and impoliteness of GPinkerton, who have no understanding of the meaning of discussion, civility, or cooperation and compromise. This is stressful for other editors, and this should be handled, and thats why Im against this ban, because Debresser brought to light examples of the toxic behaviour of GPinkerton, whom Im sure will respond to my comment in his typical rude way full of accusations and intentions interpretations, while never understanding that its his rudeness, battleground mentality, pushiness, and lack of understanding of whatever goes against what he is convinced in, are whats getting him here. If he is not forced to respect other users, he will be back here over and over again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - wouldn't wish that on my worst detractor. Admins have tools to stop HOUNDING - don't need no iBans. Atsme 💬 📧 15:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. GPinkerton is the one who needs to be blocked here, not Debresser. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see why this is necessary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest that a previously unvolved editor close this thread now. It seems clear, at least to me, that none of the proposals put forward are going to generate consesus. I think the discussion is well past the point of yielding anything constructive. I still think that the disputes raised here are best suited for Arbcorm and for WP:AE. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Close with warning

Proposal: Close this report with a warning to GPinkerton to avoid incivility and edit warring, and that further problems may be met with sanctions without additional warnings.

• Support as proposer - other proposals above aren't getting traction; perhaps this is where consensus is at this point. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per the discussions with and remarks by Cullen328, Ivanvector, and Drmies. Assem Khidhr (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is time to move on and go improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support a warning seems useful here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support As per Levivich's reasoning on getting a consensus, and Cullen in moving on. Simon Adler (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Medicine edits from 157.99.249.59 (hexane.chimorg.pasteur.fr, Institut Pasteur) reported at WP:AIV

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• 157.99.249.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Epigallocatechin gallate: vandalism after final warning. Nonsense, repetitive vandalism also on Curcumin after final warning. Zefr (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The IP address is very static, and administrators could choose pretty much any block duration to achieve the desired effect, if this is vandalism. The source and content of the edits makes it unsuitable for a quick decision at WP:AIV, however. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Viewing the IP user's edit history, example here, one can see it was lazy, same-content, unencyclopedic copying to several articles which already had histories and current content indicating the same message (concerning "PAINS" compounds). Bottom line: unconstructive editing and warring against admin, Materialscientist. Zefr (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this off of WP: AIV. I still think this is a bit complex for just one section so we should be prepared to make subsections. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

From the guilty part: aside from the use of exceedingly fast judgment concerning my various entries which are actually all about the same issue: any natural compound with phenol function (curcumin among other) is devoid of any medical potential despite zillions of publication claiming otherwise. But who cares but the sellers/quacks who are making money on such substances by claiming various cure-all properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.99.249.59 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New user spamming his paper on different talk-pages

Marcus H. Mast has a new fringe paper on inedia in the Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing journal. [109]. I do not have access to the full paper. Unfortunately the user seems to be spamming exactly the same message onto many different talk-pages [110], [111], [112]. It's seems to be promotion of his paper. What should be done here? Should his promotion be reverted? Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The journal has been described as a "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal" which publishes "truly ridiculous studies". It is unreliable for us I feel, but will wait further comment. Not sure why PG has no access to paper, as it is available under a CC by wossname thingy, on the science direct website. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sorry the link wasn't working for me earlier. It is now [113]. Having read it the paper doesn't really bring anything new to the table. There's also a lot of unreliable paranormal sources that he cites. Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing has not been used on Wikipedia because the journal has a history of publishing pseudoscience. Marcus seems to be using Wikipedia talk-pages to promote his paper. The way he was advertising was like it is ground-breaking but there is really nothing new here which hasn't been said before. He's basically calling for more studies on inedia and tighter controls. I think we would all agree on that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Teishin acting in an insulting and unconstructive way

The abovementioned user has been extremely hostile while I have tried to improve Western philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy from C-class or uncited articles into higher quality. They seem to think this is their territory and that I should stay out of it.

Here are some insulting and hostile comments they have made:

• If you need a "source" to explain to you . . . you do not know enough about this subject matter to edit it.
• the user in question is contentious and has lots of time on their hands.
• Just recently an editor who is knowledgeable about editing Wikipedia and who edits prolifically has decided to become interested in editing a few summary pages involving one of my main areas of expertise . . . I have over 1,000 such edits. I've also had a book published in the field . . . Any advice on how to persuade this editor they are in over their heads on this subject, and that they should refocus their prodigious editing efforts on topics they better understand?

And what are my sins? Have a look for yourselves: Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy. While I try to stay true to the sources, this self-proclaimed expert editor is trying to refer to other Wikipedia articles and their own expertise to make claims. They have literally not introduced a single new source to the conversation, other than quoting existing articles. They change their position when it gets challenged, and try to claim what the true meanings of authors' words are, which are apparently not the literal ones. This is such obstructive editing, it is absurd. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill, so your three accusations of edit warring have not produced your desired result, but instead have gotten you a warning to not edit Hellenistic philosophy without Talk page consensus. Since that approach did not produce the results you desire, I see that you wish to continue the conflict here. As I have described to you, ancient Greek philosophy is a complex subject. It is not a subject that can be mastered with just a couple of introductory books on the history of philosophy. Correspondingly, a claim that one is staying "true to the sources" does not describe the situation. The situation is that you keep introducing errors into the article. You have even introduced claims that contradict those on the very pages that you're linking to, and of which you are ostensibly summarizing. When I've pointed this out to you, you have absolved yourself of responsibility for ensuring accuracy, and instead dismissed the point as WP:Circular.

Such things cannot be described as improvements. I've edited collaboratively in this category for many years. It is a vast and deep category involving the hands of many, many editors who have worked to build out pages not only describing the individual philosophies, but also pages on subtopics, technical terms, and individual philosophers, none of which you have contributed to or in which you have demonstrated any expertise. Despite that, based on citations you derive from just two introductory books, you have decided you understand the field well enough to summarize it. And should any editor point out that you are making frequent errors of fact and interpretation, you accuse them of being insulting and unconstructive, and you hound them relentlessly. Teishin (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I had to make three edit warring reports about your behaviour. I mistakenly withdrew the first two when I thought I could work with you. Should not have done that. Because the last one did not involve you breaking the 3RR, you got away with it (the first two did). Again, I ask everyone reading to go to that talk page and ask themselves whether that is construction consensus-seeking in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, or something else? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

When I go to these diffs, and read the kerfluffu at Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy, it seems like this dispute consists of two editors disagreeing vehemently about what ought to be in an article, without seeking a third opinion or opening an RfC... I think you should both contemplate those options (I would be happy to provide a third opinion or a comment on Ancient Greek philosophy) before resorting to ANI (what?) and the Help Desk (what????) The only likely result of this AN/I thread is going to be @EEng: posting the Burma-Shave meme... jp×g 02:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC) NEW ANI THREADPROBLEM ACUTECLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave (with thanks to creffett) EEng 04:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to hear your third opinion. I have posted about this on the relevant wikiproject noticeboard, but there are not many editors in this area. I did not think it appropriate to ask for third opinion or rfc every time they challenge my edits, which is basically every time I edit the page, as I would be flooding the request pages. The reason I went here is because the other editor is not interested in compromising, as they clearly want me to stop editing in this domain (as they clearly have said in the Help Desk) and therefore they are just blocking my edits on any grounds possible. But I am absolutely happy to get more attention to this article from others. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill, you need to make up your mind. If you want to ask for a third opinion, the location for that is, as JPxG told you, WP:3O. In that case, we can close the thread here. If, OTOH, you want to complain about chronic, intractable behavioral problems, then be aware that such complaints can backfire, if the admins here get the impression that the complaining person themself “is not interested in compromising”. So far, I don't see in this thread any diffs that actually show a readiness to compromise on your part. ◅ Sebastian 12:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm I am confused what the red text above saying "closed" is then. I did not ask for third opinion here, the person above offered it and I said they are welcome to do so on the spot. Like I said above, this is not a sustainable solution if everything is getting challenged. If you want examples of me proposing compromise, see here

and here. I have also modified many of my edits in response to the issues raised by this user. So can you please clarify whether this is still an active case or not? Nobody has addressed the comments linked to above made by this user, which seem like a pretty serious attitude problem. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You mean the text by EEng? That was just a silly joke, don't take it seriously. Yes, the case is still active.

Both your diffs looks good, and also the communication that followed, which still can be seen at Talk:Hellenistic philosophy#Cynics etc. and Talk:Western philosophy#Compromise: Division between classical thinkers and their schools. So why didn't the first lead to a mutually agreeable solution? In the second case, the reason seems that Teishin saw problems which nobody has addressed since. The answer to why that didn't work is probably too much detail for this thread; can you please write it there? ◅ Sebastian 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In both of those cases, compromise was reached! It may look like I left Teishin hanging in the second one, but I went and adjusted my edits in accordance with their wishes. At that point I thought we were on good track, and withdrew the two 3RR cases I had made because of them. But subsequently, Teishin started to revert a section titled "Background" on Hellenistic philosophy because they did not want an exact ending date to be mentioned (there was none + they were reverting more than that). There is a section in Talk:Hellenistic philosophy about it, took forever for them to even respond to it (they were still commenting on other stuff meanwhile). Keepcalmandchill (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds good. Can you back it up with diffs, please? ◅ Sebastian 16:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, sure thing! These are diffs of both the edits and talk page, ordered chronologically. It only covers the issue of the background section.

Teishin, 12:54, 14.11.2020: "remove claim. p5 of the source cited says no such thing"

Teishin, 13:23: The claim based on p5 imputes a firmer claim than the author makes. Indeed, the author said: "This is often defined as the time beginning with the death of Alexander the Great, in 323 BC, and ending wherever the historian you’re talking to decides it should end (It does mention 31 BCE, as a popular choice, but whatever.)

Me, 14:54: Removed the exact ending date which was challenged

T, 02:17, 14.11.2020: The content provided in this background seem unnecessary. The dating has already been handled in the immediately preceding lede. Moreover, the terminology re replacing is inappropriate. Cultural periods do not replace one another

Me, 02:19, 15.11.2020: Insufficient reasoning to remove. It gives more much more detail than the one-sentence lede, including important historical context. Changed wording on periods, though

T, 03:12: okay, if you won't accept removing it, I'll try to correct it

Me, 03:18: Then explain what you are removing and why

T, 03:18: I gave an explanation at 02:17, 15 November 2020‎. How about you explain why this needs to be here?

Me, 03:21 It gives critical background information, if you disagree with that, take it to talk page and explain why it should be removed.

T, 03:26: No, you take it to the Talk page and explain why it needs to be here.

Me, 03:33: You said: "The content provided in this background seem unnecessary. The dating has already been handled in the immediately preceding lede. Moreover, the terminology re replacing is inappropriate. Cultural periods do not replace one another." I said: "Insufficient reasoning to remove. It gives more much more detail than the one-sentence lede, including important historical context. Changed wording on periods, though." Why is my reasoning not sufficient? It gives more detail than just dating. Just saying it's "unnecessary" does not help much. I have changed the terminology on the periods changing, even though cultural epochs by defintion do replace each other

Me, 03:01, 21.11.2020: Reinstating the material in question since no response given

T, 01:45, 22.11.2020: (Too long to quote, mainly reposting the above edit comments)

Me, 01:45: Yes, I see that you believe there should be no mention of the exact end date for the period, and there currently isn't, so what is the problem?

T, 02:39: There is the problem that you and I are now both banned from editing this page unless we agree on the Talk page, and this ban is due to the complaint you posted at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. There is also the problem that the article mentions an end date. The current article says: "and was followed by the predominance of Ancient Roman philosophy during the Roman Imperial period." With respect to philosophy and not other socio-political matters, Hellenistic philosophy continued long after other period demarcations. Prior editors were wise in not making any claims about when these philosophies ended, as the matter is so disputed. For that matter, see Modern Stoicism and Neostoicism that warrant articles (and I know of others that do not), suggesting that no end has happened. Consequently, claiming an end here would not seem to be warranted.

Me, 03:17 Then you can add cited sources disputing this claim, just as has happened in the Hellenistic period. I don't understand why you insist on removing content, when you can easily add new content to reflect nuance.

Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Teishin, I would like you, too, to back up your claims (that is for now just the ones in your post of 16:04, 22 November above) with diffs. ◅ Sebastian 16:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian Some background info for better understanding the diffs.

1. Hellenistic philosophy is a page that, among other things, covers a wide range of ancient Greek thought.

2. Prior to editing Hellenistic philosophy Keepcalmandchill had never edited on any page associated with Hellenistic philosophy. There are a huge number of articles. See Index_of_ancient_philosophy_articles for a list.

3. Keepcalmandchill has relied on only a handful of sources. See on Hellenistic_philosophy#References the repeated citations of Grayling, Adamson, and Sellers – all of which are introductory books.

4. Prior to this month Hellenistic philosophy has typically been edited only a few times a year. If you compare the state of the article prior to Keepcalmandchill’s first edit to how it has looked since 2008, the general structure and approach of the article has largely remained consistent. Keepcalmandchill endeavored to massively restructure the article, doing so without opening a discussion about the matter on the Talk page.

Here are some diffs that should be considered. First, there’s this important 8 July diff that has not been discussed [[114]] in which Keepcalmandchill removed a large amount of content from the page, arguing “These are not Hellenic schools... They are either pre-Socratic or classical, and are listed under different articles.” Keepcalmandchill appears at this point to be unaware that these schools (which included the Cynics!) were active during the Hellenistic period and are routinely discussed as “Hellenistic” schools. The proper name of the era is, of course, “Hellenistic” not “Hellenic”. To accommodate this concern I re-organized the article to re-include the removed schools, noting that while they originated in the Classical period they remained active in the Hellenistic period. See [[115]]

On 12 November Keepcalmandchill began their recent campaign to radically overhaul Hellenistic philosophy starting with the Cynics, relying on Adamson’s book as a source. [[116]] . Note in this diff that Keepcalmandchill moved the Cynics out of pre-Hellenistic into Hellenistic, exactly opposite of what they did on 8 July, and that they added dates for the Hellenistic period “(ca. 323-31 BCE)”, which is a claim their own source said was widely disputed. At [[117]] I moved the content about the Cynics back into the pre-Hellenistic section. At [[118]] Keepcalmandchill made their first reversion, saying “There is a source that defines it as a Hellenistic era school of thought. The founding is not as important as the time of greatest flourishing.” Hmm, that’s interesting. It’s not only adamantly opposite of their 8 July edit, but if that position is sincerely believed, then why didn’t Keepcalmandchill address the other pre-Hellenistic schools on the page and apply the same rationale to them – i.e., return the article to its structure prior to their 8 July edit and get rid of the Pre-Hellenistic header? This would be necessary to make the article logically consistent.

Also as part of that 12 November edit Keepcalmandchill created a new section describing the Hellenistic schools of thought. This edit introduced errors that I addressed separately in [[119]], noting “no, not all of these schools were Socratic, nor were they all focused on ataraxia.” All of the claims Keepcalmandchill introduces here are based on their interpretation of material covered between pages 5 and 8 of Adamson’s introductory book on Hellenistic philosophy. I have this book. It is a breezy, narrative-structured survey introduction that is part of Adamson’s series of introductory books on the history of philosophy. Keepcalmandchill promptly reverts the edit [[120]] saying “Why are you removing sourced content?” disregarding the reason I gave with the edit. It seems to me that someone with a basic knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy would know that the Epicureans and the Pyrrhonists were not Socratics, which one can learn from our own articles about those schools, and that not all of the schools were focused on ataraxia, which one can learn from our own article on ataraxia. And if they did not know that, then at least they might be intellectually charitable and further investigate the claims in question, or to at least recognize that they had been given a reason.

Next, I moved the Cynics back to the category of pre-Hellenistic [[121]] In reaction to that, Keepcalmandchill does [[122]] where they introduce editorializing into the section headings, changing ==Pre-Hellenistic schools of thought== to ==Pre-Hellenistic schools of thought with less significance== and == schools of thought== to ==Main schools of thought== and again moving the Cynics. They also decided to create a new category “== Religious schools of thought ==” and move the “===Eclecticism===” section out of the article, all as part of the same edit, saying “To avoid an edit war, I'm changing the sections as follows: 1. Pre-exsting schools of thought with lesser significance; 2. The main schools as recognised by the literature; 3. Religious schools (which conveniently covers the rest, except for eclecticism which I'm moving over to the Roman philosophy article.” This, of course, did not avoid an edit war at all. It just added new major changes and an audacious claim that their interpretation of the beginning pages of one introductory book represented what was “recognized by the literature.” This edit was followed by nine more mostly minor edits in the following hour. I followed that with a reversion which was promptly followed by an undo saying “No explanation given”. I followed that by an undo with the comment “all of these changes were explained before. Stop your edit warring.”

Right after that I opened up a discussion about the matter on the Talk page [[123]] (Interestingly, the first time since 2012 that there’d been an issue requiring discussion.) As one can see in this discussion, Keepcalmandchill’s argument is based on the idea that there are “main” schools of Hellenistic philosophy, but if you look at the organization of the page, it is organized chronologically and Keepcalmandchill’s edits fail to address that. Instead they just insist that because the Cynics are “main” they must go with the later schools. They did not create main/non-main and move the schools accordingly. They just kept insisting that the Cynics belong where they chronologically do not, even though back on 8 July they thought the Cynics did not even belong on this page because of the same issues about chronology. Yet somehow Keepcalmandchill thinks it was appropriate to say to me “you have not actually provided any source saying the Cynics are Classical period." It seems to me that knowledge of the basics about the chronology of the Cynics would be information necessary for anyone presuming to be knowledgeable enough about Hellenistic philosophy to write an encyclopedia article about it. Besides, they themselves made exactly the same claim on 8 July about the Cynics being in the Classical period, but now they fault me for not providing them with a source for such an easily verifiable bit of information? Is there a word to describe such behavior? That someone should start an edit war over such a matter, then escalate that conflict making the complaint presented here, even after they’ve already been given a warning about the issue by EdJohnston at [[124]] …. well, that’s something for other people to opine about, as I am a party to the dispute and one would need little imagination to figure out what I think of the matter. I am, however, sorry that you have to be spending your time reviewing all of these details and dealing with this dispute. It seems to me that EdJohnston's action should have ended the matter.Teishin (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the first diff of this thread, If you need a "source" ..., it immediately looks bad for Teishin, as if they were flouting WP:RS. However, if one looks at the content of Teishin's statement, it appears (here again, a diff would help) that Keepcalmandchill insisted that Diogenes should be taken out of the Classical period without a RS, which deviates at least from this self-proclaimed non-expert humble administrator's understanding significantly enough to warrant a source. In short, IMHO this diff makes both look bad. ◅ Sebastian 16:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, Originally Diogenes was covered by the rest of the Cynics under the Hellenistic schools, with a source confirming this placement, before Teishin removed that.This source then goes on to cover Diogenes with the rest of the Cynics who have been placed firmly in the Hellenistic period, so I was asking for a source that clearly links him in the Classical period over the Hellenistic one. I was thinking of the periods as thematic, rather than strictly chronological. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: There is a case involving both users at WP:AN3#User:Teishin reported by User:Keepcalmandchill (Result: Both warned). If this is basically the same case, then this is a violation of WP:FORUMSHOP. ◅ Sebastian 20:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is basically the same case. See my discussion above of the diffs.Teishin (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not the same. The other case was only with regards to the edit warring. This is about a broader problem of behaviour. In the other case, the administrator did not comment on the discourse at all, only determining that both of us had edit warred (although, I have not broken 3RR at any point). If I hear an administrator give a ruling on the discourse, I will accept it as the final word. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit late for you to say that now. WP:FORUMSHOP says about this: “Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.” You may argue that you hadn't read this, but this is something common sense and regard for others should already advise. This would have allowed us all to clarify that question firsts, before delving in the details. I am very tempted to simply close this discussion along these lines. But since both of you already took the effort of providing your evidence, and since I'm interested in the topic, I ask that everyone lay off the discussion here for a couple hours, while I study the new evidence. ◅ Sebastian 08:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, Yes, I understand and apologize. If I may suggest, putting up a notice about WP:FORUMSHOP at the top of the page might help avoid these kinds of mistakes in the future (not that the lack of one excuses my behaviour, just think it might make your and other admins' lives easier). Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You are free to make such a suggestion at WT:AN. However, it is not likely to be adopted, since for such requests the most common reply is that the more notes there are at the top of the page, the fewer people will read them all. Because there's no such note, I did not officially reprimand you, but instead appealed to your common sense and regard for others. If people posting complaints here had more of that, it would be the biggest improvement for all of us here. ◅ Sebastian 09:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I read some of the evidence, but it would take more time than I have now to go through it all, and I think it would be more productive to let bygones be bygones and move on. What I read so far already gave me a new idea, which I would like to suggest to both of you – see #Suggestion for a resolution below.

Keepcalmandchill's evidence:

T▷ 12:54f, 14.11.

("remove claim. p5 of the source cited says no such thing") – Since I don't have the print sources in front of me, I can't say whether that is true.

K▷ 14:54, 14.11.

(“Removed the exact ending date which was challenged”) – not a removal, but an addition

Teishin's evidence:

8 July diff

In itself, this is no violation of Wikipedia rules: It contains a clear edit summary which makes sense and followed WP:BRD, as can be seen from the ensuing discussion and the compromise cited by Keepcalmandchill above. The deletion made sense because Pythagoreanism Sophism, and Cynicism flourished in classical time, and can be distinguished from later schools such as Neopythagoreanism, Second Sophistic, and Neoplatonism. The case may not be quite as clear for Peripateticism, but then the commonly followed advice is to only reinstate that one school instead of the complete revert that followed. (In this context, it may be worthwhile to remember that Gallilei argued that Aristotle would not have agreed with the Peripateticists of his time. Presumably, a similar argument could have been made in Hellenistic time.) The error Hellenic instead of Hellenistic is very likely an inadvertant mistake, to the correction of which it is hard to imagine Keepcalmandchill raising any objection. Bringing that up here seems a frivolous waste of everyone's time. ◅ Sebastian 10:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for a resolution

Now I have an unusual proposal: Instead of imposing any further restriction, which would be a shame since you are both well-intended editors who have proven that, at least sometimes, you are able to very reasonably collaborate, I suggest the following:

1. I could watch the pages on which you interact for a while.
2. Under certain conditions I could simply revert a post. I would do so without much deliberation, which means that none of these reverts should be construed as a reprimand. It would be just a quick measure to keep the discussion on focus. As conditions for my reversals I suggest:
   1. if my first impression is that a message may lack respect or consideration.
   2. if a message appears to veer off topic.
   3. if I see what I believe to be an inadvertent mistake, such as “Hellenic” instead of “Hellenistic” I may correct it. The person writing the message should treat such a correction just as one would treat a bot's edit: If you disagree with it, simply revert it. Note: This subitem was added after the first reply.
3. The moment one of you realizes that both of you are working disharmoniously on the same article, ey will ping me so I can watch the article. For that, I'd rather not rely on WP:PING, since I already experienced delays of several days from that. Instead, e-mail may be an option, since I will be less likely to miss it. Another option would be a dedicated page where only the article link and a time stamp is entered. I would prefer that option over a note on my talk page, since it would not clutter my talk page and also allow others to monitor the situation in an easy opt-in way.
4. If one of you adds a reference that can't be checked online, you will send me a picture of the page per mail.

Would that work for both of you? ◅ Sebastian 10:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, I am definitely happy with this! Thank you very much for offering to use your time to improve the editing experience. Just a question, are we allowed to add content on the page without prior permission, and if we do require prior permission, does it have to be affirmative or simply a lack of objection? This is just in regards to new content, for reversions I will always start a discussion and seek full consensus. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I would allow it, but I must admit that I haven't checked whether there are any other rulings currently in place. This above suggestion wasn't meant to contradict any admin having decided otherwise. If there was a different ruling, please point the issuing admin here, so we can discuss it. (BTW, please note that I added the subitem about corrections above after you posted your reply. I hope that's OK with you.) ◅ Sebastian 11:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, Yes, the subitem is completely agreeable. The ruling on the edit warring was given by EdJohnston, and requires consensus for any edits. I have asked for feedback on edits I would like to make, but have received none. So if the requirement is a positive affirmation of my proposals, I could be de facto blocked from editing the page if nobody responds to my posts. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer; I now see Ed's message on both your and Teishin's talk page, and am embarrassed that I didn't take it into account sooner. I asked Ed to take a look at my proposal. If he doesn't agree as it's written, there are maybe some chances for compromise:

1. You could both observe WP:1RR (I voluntarily committed to a similar rule, Don't re-revert, which works well for me.)
2. Maybe Ed could set a time limit to the restriction, basically turning it into a keep-calm-and-chill quarantine. (Sorry about the pun, it was too tempting). Then my suggested resolution could become active after that.

◅ Sebastian 12:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. I feel like the best system would be one where every time new content is added, a corresponding discussion is opened on the talk page where all disagreements are then hashed out under your supervision. This would allow for maximal new contributions as well as maximal opportunities for challenging them without edit warring. But I of course leave it to you two to decide how to proceed. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm a little surprised that you're saying that, since I defended your edit of 8 July (first item of Teishin's diff list above) by saying that you followed BRD then. Are you now speaking from the experience that that turned out to be quite painful for both of you? ◅ Sebastian 13:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in this case I think it is better to do it this way. But this is the first time in a year of constant editing that I've had to do so.

Sebastian, I am honored that you feel that our past contributions warrant such an investment of your time on this matter. Given the scarcity of such resources, I thought EdJohnston had been sufficiently Solomonic in issuing warnings to both parties not to edit Hellenistic philosophy without Talk page agreement. Forcing the pace of change to slow down greatly and to require discussion and deliberation appears to be working. It may be informative to look at the discussion on Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy#Proposal regarding editor GPinkerton’s proposal which was made 22 Nov. Due to the warning, both parties can only discuss the matter. GPinkerton has not effected any edits on the matter. You might consider what’s going on in this discussion to be evidence that EdJohnston’s approach is working and should be continued; however, if you prefer your more labor-intensive approach, I’m fine with that as well.

Yes, the idea of adding a time limit on the matter seems to be a good addition. Most people lose their passion for making major overhauls of a page when the opportunity to do so must be put off to several months in the future or when in the near term it requires extensive explanation and discussion. Teishin (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock please – Plymouth in Greater Detroit

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

---

Regarding the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Music vandal from Greater Detroit, the range listed below has been active recently. Same behavior, same interests. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• 2600:1702:37D0:7960:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Temir Oguz

Temir Oguz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit wars and POW in number of articles. Already permanently blocked in Ruwiki, please similarly block here. Каракорум (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Каракорум, please notify them on this report of their talk page, as policy dictates at the top of this page and when you were creating this report. You may use {{subst:ANI notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Done. Каракорум (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Long running revert war

Someone using the IP 63.140.96.155 (talk · contribs) has been involved in a long-running revert war on several articles related to Star Trek. They were blocked back on the 17th for this, then after the block expired they went right back to reverting to their "preferred version" on said articles [125], [126]. In some cases, these edits introduce factual inaccuracies and there's been zero attempt at talk page discussion or consensus-building by the IP editor. I think a longer block is warranted. ♟♙ (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

First: only one of your diffs was a revert to a Star Trek article. Second: the IP was correcting a claim that was in fact incorrect. Stat Trek Voyager is the third sequel in the franchise not the fourth as claimed. The sequence is 'Star Trek [TOS - original]; Star Trek Next Generation [TNG - first sequel]; Star Trek Deep Space 9 [DS9 - second sequel] and then Star Trek Voyager [third sequel]. There is no series between the original and the first sequel identified as 'TAS' in the reverts by SonOfThornhill as claimed. Neither the Star Trek article mentions such a series, nor is there an article for it (whatever 'TAS' is supposed to signify). 86.140.67.152 (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is at Star Trek: The Animated Series. It has a section at Star Trek. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the list of television series at Star Trek so not a serious sequel. No serious Star Trek fan considers it a proper sequel either. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And... I believe that this makes it a content dispute. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with EnPassant and MrOllie. The Animated Series IS canon whether you like it or not. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If you acknowledge it's a content dispute (which you are on the wrong side of) why did you subsequently make this edit with a false claim of vandalism? Calling an edit you disagree with "vandalism", when it clearly is not, is sanctionable. Grandpallama (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No it isn't. It isn't listed in the TV series on the article Star Trek so clearly no one there thinks so. And from the edit history, I am definitely not the only one who thinks so. I count three people who disagree with you. Ergo, this is a content dispute and you are in the wrong because you never started a discussion on the talk page and even though there now is your attitude, both there and here, is that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

It isn't listed in the TV series on the article Star Trek is objectively incorrect. And you still haven't explained why you are calling other editors vandals. Grandpallama (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And even if it wasn't, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second time someone's made the "another article doesn't say so" argument in the last week, on wildly unrelated pages too... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

In your opinion, but clearly not everyone's opinion. They are vandals for continually reverting without making any attempt to discuss on the talk page (per WP:BRD). At least I did raise the issue on the talk page, but it has only been met with a response based on 'I am right, everybody else is wrong'). 86.140.67.152 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We actually DID raise our voices at the talk page. You just didn't read it. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And we also have the pot calling the kettle black because you have accused me of vandalism (thrice) so making the same claim a about some one else is pure hypocrisy and the weapon of some one who is in the wrong. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out that 86.140.67.152 has already broken 3RR at Star Trek: Voyager. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So now we have TWO Anon IPs edit warring at articles related to Star Trek (The Rodney Reed edit seems to be an outlier). And one of them has appeared here to derail this thread into a content dispute. Edit warring, particularly after a block issued for same, is never acceptable regardless of who is "right". ♟♙ (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's an uninvolved anon IP, to suggest that maybe everyone involved in this should read Wikipedia policy on proper sourcing. Which excludes what other Wikipedia articles/lists say, and the alleged opinions of 'serious Star Trek fans'. And after they've read WP:RS, they should take it to the talk page. Assuming they haven't been blocked for edit warring first. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

All of that is made mostly irrelevant by the IP violating 3RR, ignoring the consensus on the talkpage, accusing other editors of "vandalism", and making largely bizarre claims (i.e., these odd repetitions that the animated series isn't in the Star Trek article). Grandpallama (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Killing of João Alberto Freitas

Hi folks. This is way out of my experience. We have this page Killing of João Alberto Freitas here, which was already skirting notability but now we're seeing 'people involved' being added in and identified. I reverted the edit [127] citing NOTNEWS because I'm not quite sure where IDing people who haven't been tried for a murder as involved in that murder sits. Can an admin please look at this and tell me if I'm going mad or not? Thanks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no way in hell that listing 'people involved' in that way (i.e. giving names, with no explanation whatsoever of what their alleged involvement even was) is even remotely compliant with Wikipedia policy. If the names of an accused are ever included in such an article, it needs very good sourcing, a clear explanation of what exactly they have been accused of, and wording which makes it unequivocally clear that they are allegations, as yet unproven. First though, it needs to be established that a Wikipedia article is merited at all, which I'd say is currently open to question. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you're going mad. Or, rather, you're incorrect. Take a look at Killing of George Floyd, Killing of Rayshard Brooks, Killing of Ahmaud Arbery or any of those BLM articles; there is almost always a "people involved" section, which identifies the victim, the police officer(s), and other significant persons. This is because those individuals will not have their own pages. This page is not "skirting notability", I think it's just a language barrier issue and also the page is at the wrong title (or an incomplete title, but in any case, not the common name in English). This incident might be the "George Floyd" of Brazil (only time will tell how big the protests get, but they're already national protests); it's been covered by international media. I will fix up the article a bit shortly, but this is a content dispute; there's no BLP or NOTNEWS violation here. And we do sometimes identify people who are accused of crimes even if they haven't been convicted (subject to BLP policy of course, specifically WP:BLPCRIME). Levivich (^harass/_hound) 18:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Being a police officer doesn’t make someone a “high profile individual”. The fact that almost all BLM related protest articles are noncompliant with BLP for the wrong reasons doesn’t mean the issue should be widened to other articles. In fact, it suggests that the editors who frequent BLM articles are somehow ignoring the fact that BLPCRIME states that for any previously low profile individual, content suggesting they may be involved in a crime should not be included anywhere. And note that the page it links to describing what is/not a high profile individual makes very clear that routine job duties do not make someone a high profile individual when their job is a “run of the mill” job like police officer. I have no concern with the article existing - the event seems notable - but the onus is on people adding the information to prove the individuals in question were high profile, otherwise BLPCRIME prohibits any mention of them in relation to a crime - sourced or not. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, Stating in Wikipedia's voice that an individual is 'involved' in a killing, rather than that they are alleged to have been, prior to any conviction, is a violation of WP:BLP policy. This isn't open to debate. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Um, the persons arrested for a killing are "involved" in the killing, regardless of whether they are guilty or not. Being arrested makes them involved. (Especially when there is a video of the killing depicting said persons.) The person who was killed is also "involved". These are the "people involved" in the killing. I don't particularly care for that subject header as it's rather vague in my view (I'd rather use "victim" and "suspects" or something like that), but this ain't no BLP violation, and if it is, we're violating BLP on hundreds of BLM articles and somehow no one has noticed so far... Levivich (^harass/_hound) 18:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In an article about a person who was killed by police, we include the names of the police officers who allegedly killed the subject. Especially when those officers are arrested. This is no exception. FYI I've moved the article to use the full name as most commonly used in English-language sources, restored the content about persons involved, added some sources, inc. in English, and removed the notability tag. There is still plenty of expansion of the article that could be done, but I don't see any policy issues with it. Levivich (^harass/_hound) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In any article referring to alleged, as yet unproven, crimes, we make it absolutely clear that these are allegations, regardless of whether the allegations concern police officers, security guards, or anyone else. I have made minimal changes to the article to reflect this, and I suggest you ensure that any further edits likewise comply with Wikipedia policy. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we please have some outside attention to this. Rather than discussing this either here or on the article talk page, it seems that people are intent on edit-warring a WP:BLP violation into the article. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not see anything here that qualifies as a BLP violation. The individuals noted are the accused, and the article makes it clear that they are only accused at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as the article stands now, it appears no longer to violate WP:BLP. Hopefully it will remain that way. And maybe people will use the article talk page to discuss any further questions, rather than ANI threads, edit summaries and postings to user pages. It would make things a whole lot simpler... 109.159.88.9 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I opened a thread at ANI because I was concerned at the way these people were ID'd in the article and thought it potentially a serious violation of BLP that possibly would require rapid admin action or certainly a more experienced judgement than mine. I'm not going mad, it seems, which is nice. Sorry if I disturbed anyone, we can close this now and all go home for tea. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Gabriel The Epic Gaming Champion1234

• Gabriel The Epic Gaming Champion1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been warned multiple times for disruptive editing, mainly at amusement park articles where they are inserting unsourced claims or modifying existing information like ride names and replacing them with incorrect names. The behavior is intentional and doesn't appear to be accidental, especially given that they are ignoring edit summaries and talk page notices. I can collect diffs if needed, but you can pretty much look at any of their edits. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Gabriel has only made 52 edits so far, none to discussion pages. They do seem to be making unsourced changes (e.g. changing dates, changing names, without changing sources). I looked at their last five edits and they failed verification (and were already reverted). They've been templated multiple times by GoneIn60, as well as triggering ClueBot a couple times. In these situations an attention-getting block is not uncommon.

On the other hand, no one has tried to talk to Gabriel on their talk page other than via a template messages. I note that template messages that don't have diffs or any personalized note with them are extremely vague (the stock templates are all horribly written) and a new user might not know what to make of them. A regular talk page message really should be the first step, before templates, before ANIs, and before blocks. Also, "The behavior is intentional" is unfounded; none of us know what Gabriel's intent is. They could just be a newbie who doesn't have WP:V down yet.

So in sum, Gabriel's unsourced edits are problematic, but I don't think they've been properly approached about it yet. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reached out to them, in a fairly simplistic manner. I have invited them to come and talk with me. I have no idea if the editor is a 60 year old with a PHD and an interest in theme parks, or is a 14 year old. Tricky. Simon Adler (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment, and perhaps I should expound on the claim that the disruption seems "intentional". First, let's look at these consecutive edits one at a time:

• diff1
• diff2

That's odd behavior, but it's still early. Shortly after getting reverted, this follows:

• diff3

Vortex was a highly-publicized, heavily-marketed ride. There should be no shortage of sources in this regard, and it even has its own article full of sources only a click away. Now the editor's intentions are becoming questionable, but it's still too soon to draw any conclusions. Then a month later, some random year changes are tried, and these in particular are interesting:

• diff4
• diff5

Notice how Rotor's closing year was changed from 1981 to 1982, and then later from 1981 to 1980. Could that have been an honest mistake or the lack of WP:V awareness? Perhaps it's a reasonable possibility in a vacuum, but when taken into account with a larger sample, the likelihood of either becomes increasingly doubtful. Motivations and intentions aside, I'm not sure a personalized approach will have any effect, but if it will satisfy concerns of being thorough, we can certainly try that next if that's the recommendation here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Just saw Simon's post above. Appreciate you taking the time to reach out. Good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

IP hopping POV warrior violating BLP

Not sure if anything can be done about it, but a dynamic IP keeps on making comments like this [[128]] at Talk:2020 Delhi riots. Its clear the wp:nothere is strong in this one. But dynamic IP's are hard to deal with.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

THe reason why chose the IP hopping approach is because Slatersteven and a bunch of editors are trying to present a one-sided narrative of the 2020 Delhi Riots. They refuse to name anything to do with any perpetrator who is of Islamic affiliation and liberally use Hinduphobic language on the page. When i questioned them from my own account and IP, they blocked me for frivulous reasons. Now, I got their double standards, hook,line and sinker, they are claiming i am [wp:nothere]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.83.101 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And PA's [[129]], and an admission of block evasion. Also as I am not an admin I blocked no one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

223: if you've under an active block you should successfully appeal said block before coming here. Coming here and telling us you're evading a block destroys any case you may have. Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This editor's IP space appears to be 223.186.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Purely coincidentally this range is also being used by one of the beauty pageant promofarms, so I wouldn't feel bad about it being blocked if this editor pops up again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Lutz Fehling is back

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

---

This person, a crank who uses IPs to post, was disruptive on the Teahouse last year, and a range block was put in place. [130]. I know them from earlier this year and their attempts to promote "Whiteheadsches Syndrom" in relation to the Holocaust, which got them a partial block. [131]

Now they're back, still promoting the apparently non-existent psychiatric syndrome [132], [133] and pushing silica gel as a cure for schizophrenia. [134], [135], [136]

This person is very persistent and will simply repost their stuff over and over again, sometimes not very coherently. [137], [138], [139]

Is there any chance of a range block now, earlier rather then later? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

IPs used:

• 89.15.238.133
• 89.15.238.121
• 89.15.239.157
• 89.15.238.80
• 89.15.237.116
• 89.15.236.236
• 89.15.238.88
• 89.15.239.182
• 89.15.238.24
• 89.15.236.212
• 89.15.237.98
• 82.77.223.28
• 197.48.93.4

P.S. The editor was indeffed from de.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Would anyone oppose if I wrote up an LTA for this user? Also, perhaps an edit filter would be helpful here. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 02:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• An LTA sounds like a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I blocked Special:Contributions/89.15.236.0/22 for a month. There are a couple of tiny good edits in that range but not recently. 197.48.93.4 (talk · contribs) has only edited once, in May 2020, and I think no action at this stage would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Edit warring with multiple accounts

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

---

At Bloodlands, Greenpie78 (talk · contribs), 96.65.25.1 (talk · contribs) and 96.65.1.249 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• 48 hours for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

IP vandal

Chronic IP vandal using false edit summaries to remove any mention of India in articles and inserting Pakistan in its place. E.g: "I added citations for information that was not cited." (removes content and sources than add anything); "I removed information that was not cited." (removes clearly cited info along with POVPUSH insertion). These are the boilerplate false edit summaries he has been using to carry out his vandalisms all over wiki since at least late last year, can't believe no action has been taken until now. A range block is needed here considering the scope of vandalisms and high IP hopping. Gotitbro (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Uanfala who dealt with a few of these IPs some time back. Gotitbro (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Very disruptive. Blatant vandalism and POVPUSH here. Seems to be changing/removing everything India-related and replacing them with "Pakistan" and "Southwest Asia"! (which doesn't even include Pakistan). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

They're from the same geographical location (Porter Ranch, California) and have the same ISP (Spectrum). Maybe a range block is in order? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be 2605:e000:230e:b400::/64. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Noting that QEDK has blocked the /64 for two weeks. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

SPA repeatedly violating NPA

EddieLeVisco Claims to be Ed Gold, and his single purpose is to complain about that article, including obvious personal attacks such as [140], [141] (calling all male editors egoistic). They have been de facto banned from the Teahouse, see Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Posts by EddieLeVisco, and when people have tried to help them at Talk:Ed Gold, this user's harassment is meaning editors no longer want to discuss that page. All in all, this user is a massive time sap on the encylopedia, and is not here to contribute positively, only to harass and insult well meaning editors because that article doesn't match their preferred version. Thus, I believe an indef block is warranted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely but with a note on how to get unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This retaliatory post on his website [142] won't foster much goodwill... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

IP 203.177.93.98 engage block evasion

• 203.177.93.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

In Timeline of the 21st century, this user evidently is a WP:BLOCKEVASION of IP User talk:58.71.120.251 that was blocked before by adding vandalized content. So it needs to be blocked or at least warned. I believe it should be reported at ANI as well, given after the page is unprotected, this IP actually same user, engaging similar behavior. 110.137.190.154 (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This relates to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Yaysmay15. FDW777 (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Gcmackay and COVID-19 denial

• Gcmackay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sucharit Bhakdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Article also discussed at #Edits by User:Alexbrn above.

Despite being notified of the general sanctions (COVID-19) on this article this editor continues a pattern of disruptive editing. It began with this edit falsly claiming an article had been vandalised, which restored a version described as an absolute mess of undue weight by @Iridescent: and described as a completely whitewashed and perfectly free-of-bias overview of Bhakdi's career by @Ivanvector:. To see the horrific problems with the restored version you only have to look at the first paragraph of the COVID-19 section where it says in Wikipedia's voice The very negative sounding reports in the news media about the severity of the virus often result from bad statistics which are a product of poor quality of data collected, and of severely manipulated interpretations of the statistics. The editor has continued with their attempts to whitewash the article, for example claiming properly referenced information was "opinion/vandalism", removing properly referenced criticism of his views claiming "Removed reference and link to opinionated article" (the net result of which left a sentence reading During the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic, Bhakdi started a Youtube channel proposing that deaths from the virus has been overstated, effectively promoting his fringe misinformation without any rebuttal), adding weasel wording, further removal of the misinformation sentence, claiming it was an "unsourced assertion", and continuing to edit war to remove the sentence. Their conduct at Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi shows they have no idea about policy, so perhaps some sanctions could be applied to this editor please? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, I am new to sanctions, but the editor in question seems to be inexperienced, could the 500/30 rule apply? (Non-administrator comment) Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Parblocked indefinitely from editing Sucharit Bhakdi; the relentless revert warring on the article after several warnings is unacceptable. I did not block them from the talk page because they have a point about describing a noted and award-winning scientist's entire career as "known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation" in Wikipedia's voice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector and FDW777, Gcmackay has appealed this block. (Non-administrator comment) Mr. Heart ^(talk) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• A slight tangent, but the latest edit[143] further shows things are going a bit crazy at this article. I think some kind of protection would be warranted. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New user, new activity in the Poland date-changing vandal case

• Main page: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Poland
• Three days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Reblock_Polish_date-changing_vandal
• Three months ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Suggestions_please_–_rangeblock_the_Poland_IP_date-changing_vandal

Yesterday, new user Katarzyna180 showed up, making the same edits as previous IP vandals from Poland.[144][145] Today, new activity appeared from Special:Contributions/37.248.214.25, directly following Katarzyna180 with the same edit.[146][147] Can we reblock the range Special:Contributions/37.248.208.0/21, and indef the new user? This is the first time I have seen that the vandal has registered a username, but they may have started their disruptive career with a username back in 2018 or earlier. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that Katarzyna180 has also edited Polish-language Wikipedia,[148] with every edit reverted. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Fram abusive behaviour

User:Fram is engaged in personal vendetta to delete articles I have created. I had no interaction with said user before he started a mass deletion request on 15 September for all military organization articles related to the end of the Cold War: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle. After I informed the editors of the WikiProject Military History of Fram's attempt to mass delete a whole series of articles he withdraw his request to avoid getting his deletion request closed as "keep". Since then he keeps nominating single articles from his earlier mass deletion request and harasses every editor, who votes to "keep" these articles by belittling and dismissing their arguments. Fram has repeatedly stated that he plans to nominate all 20 articles of his initial mass deletion request individually for deletion. We are currently at the fifth deletion discussion now and every editor, not voting in line with his views, is harassed into either leaving the discussion or endlessly justifying their vote to Fram. However no matter what argument one brings Fram is dismissive of them all and doesn't stop demanding editors justify their vote to him until they leave a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989. When I started this notice I left a "keep" comment at the Danish Armed Forces deletion discussion and it took Fram 25 minutes to dismiss and belittle my comment.

Not content with trying to delete Cold War era articles in which I participated, he has gone through the articles I created and listed a further two unrelated articles for deletion in an attempt to take revenge: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974. The 1974 article (176 references) and 1977 article (252 references) are companion articles to the Italian Army 1975 reform article (403 references), which was the key reform of the Italian Army in the post-WWII era. Neither article duplicates the 1975 information, one provides an in depth look at the organization from which the reform started and one a look at the organization after the reform and the additional tweaks and changes were concluded by 1977.

This nomination is a bad faith and spurious revenge for not intercepting Fram's initial mass deletion of Cold War era military organization articles. Fram is acting out of spite and his abuse is not just extending to me but also other editors, who do not fall in line with his demands (including cursing at them i.e.). His tone to editors not voting as he demands is rude, patronising and abusive. His inability of letting an opposing view stand without a comment points to an uncooperative and intolerant attitude towards other editors. Even attempts to improve the articles were ignored (i.e. this additional material I added to the deleted Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 article, but luckily also copied to the Austrian Armed Forces article). The user in question has a history of abusive behaviour. I believe the user's attitude, actions and behaviour are unacceptable and run counter to the good faith work we editors undertake on wikipedia. noclador (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a vendetta against Noclador (or anyone else for that matter). I noticed a group of articles which I thought were lacking notability. A group nomination was withdrawn as people objected, and then individual nominations were started:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination) closed as delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 closed as delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987 closed as delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989 is ongoing
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 has just started (nom for 2 articles)

I also participated in some AfDs for similar articles started by other editors recently. I don't think I have interacted with Noclador outside these AfDs and outside this group of articles (at least not recently, as far as I recall).

I can't check who created the deleted articles; the three ongoing AfDs are articles created by Noclador. But I also voted in e.g. the AfD for List of Territorial Army units (2012), not created or ever edited by Noclador. This ANI section is thus baseless. Fram (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Basically, my involvement, my edits, are about the topic, not about Noclador. Fram (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Unless the 2 editors in question have some history or grudge, I'm not seeing a personal vendetta. Maybe a topic vendetta. In your comment labeled "dismiss and belittle my comment", I see them attacking the article's sourcing, not the article's author (you). In your diff labeled with them cursing you, I see them using curse words, but not cursing you out. What does bringing up the FRAMBAN have anything to do with this dispute? I don't see anything other than a very aggressive nominator who is getting push back from others, so they are turning it up a notch. It seems the AfDs are playing out otherwise routinely. Maybe Fram can back off some, but then again, maybe the sourcing can be improved. I look at this posting as letting off some steam, which has hopefully quelled the tension a bit? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The only connection between the articles Fram nominated earlier and the two he nominated last are that I contributed to the earlier ones and created the latter two. Searching through the list of articles I created to find article to nominate for deletion is a revenge act. As for User:Bison X's comment that "sourcing can be improved" - tell that to Fram, who rejects every single source unless it would specifically state an extremely narrow viewpoint he demands. Besides the latter two articles have 176 references respectively 252 references - how to improve that? To sum it up: Fram nominates referenced articles for deletion out of revenge. A unacceptable behaviour for a project, which is based on cooperation. noclador (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

TBAN violation by Fæ

Good afternoon all, I believe that Fæ has violated their topic ban (imposed here) which bans them from the topic of human sexuality, broadly construed on the ArbCom candidate pages. They asked each candidate the same question regarding UCoC and its relationship to user pronouns and sexual orientation, an example addition can be found here. I believe that question is a pretty clear TBAN violation, and since this is a community-imposed restriction I am bringing this to the community for input on how to proceed. For my part, I will offer to remove the question from any candidate's page (as an ElectCom action) if the candidate wants. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say have the clerks remove the questions from the Arbcom pages as they're a clear violation, but I wouldn't support any sanction in this case. The wording of the enacting of the topic ban is slightly ambiguous (all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues), and Fae may reasonably have assumed that because the election pages are neither "articles" nor "other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues", these particular pages weren't covered. The intent of the close as intended to apply to "trans issues everywhere" rather than "pages which already mention trans issues" seems obvious, but reading it in the more narrow way is a legitimate interpretation. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  As far as removing the questions is concerned, if the applicability of the TBAN is not clear, I think the issue must be raised whether the questions are disruptive - if they are not, then I don't see why they should be removed. And having read the sample provided, I don't see how that question (and the diff containing it) is disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see much room for misinterpretation in the TBAN - the close, as affirmed by Cullen last year, is "broadly construed," and I read the "all articles having to do with..." as a preemptive explanation rather than a narrowing of scope. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I can't agree, since: A) ARCA has clarified that the scope of this topic as an ArbCom/DS matter definitely includes gender (not limited to "pages about", which is just unfortunate ANI wording), and the ANI-reimposed sanction is not a new one, but reinstatement of one that was imposed by ArbCom. B) The nature of the post is patently disruptive regardless, so it is independently subject to the expanded scope of WP:ARBGG (including sexuality and gender, broadly), and Fæ is subject to those DS, having previously been sanctioned under them. So, there are two independent reasons a sanction cannot be evaded here. Also C) per GeneralNotability, whose gist can also be expanded as: attempting to interpret this topic ban, in special part, as only applying when an entire page is about that topic is very obviously not the intent of the T-ban, and nothing in the ANI imposing (or earlier RFARB for the original version) it could possibly suggest such an interpretation. Cf. WP:Wikilawyering. Also D) the imposer of the sanction reminded Fæ of the full scope, in response to edits not in "a page about" gender, etc., but a random bio.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm in absolutely no doubt that the questions should be removed (and I'd even argue that they should probably be revision deleted unless they're needed as evidence in a future case against Fae, as they're clearly made in bad faith in an effort to provoke a fight between two candidates). The only point on which I think we disagree is that I don't think the question in and of itself is worthy of restoring Fae's permanent siteban, which would be the end result if it's concluded that this was an intentional breach. ‑ Iridescent 18:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Even I'm not I wasn't originally arguing for a ban, more like a meaningful block and pushed-back appeal, clearer remedy wording for sure – and perhaps a one-way interaction-ban, given how long this "attack SMcCandlish until the end of time" behavior has been going on. The breach of the DS (personal attack, disruptive purpose) was blatantly intentional, but the breach of the T-ban per se appears appeared to be testing/gaming; the editor has attempted such "find the edge" behavior before and been reminded by multiple admins that it will not end well [149][150]. While it can't go unaddressed, this looks like a "maybe I can get away with it one more time", not a "go out in a blaze of glory". PS: I feel no personal need for revdel; my skin's thicker than that. Update: Fæ's own commentary below makes it clear this is very intentional agitprop. It should be revdel'd because it's having a poison-the-well effect. Someone else can ask a "clean" version if they want to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC); updated: 20:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Given Fae's lies (or at absolute maximum WP:AGF, deliberately misleading statements) below, switching to straight support either restoration of the site ban or a lengthy block for disruption. Fae isn't a new user who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and can't possibly expect us to consider obvious BS like "by 'I wasn't notified' I meant that I wasn't given a notification on Commons" as credible, and likewise can't possibly believe that it's acceptable to claim the participants in this thread have been canvassed without providing any evidence—if The off-wiki discussion exists. Some of the accounts here have the same names there then there should be no difficulty in telling us which names. This is just someone yanking our collective chains and not, as I initially thought, a good-faith misunderstanding of the terms of a topic ban. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think the question is germane to the WMF's goals and to ArbCom elections. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  The issue is not whether "the question is germane to the WMF's goals and to ArbCom elections". That's irrelevant. The issue is that Fæ is not allowed to ask said questions. If you are concerned about these issues, you can ask the questions. Topic bans are about the behavior of an individual, and what they are not allowed to do. They are not about anything else. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think Fæ should be granted an exception that distinguishes ArbCom elections from other parts of Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  If we granted one editor that exception we'd have to grant it to all TBANed editors. Not a good idea IMO. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  And there is no policy basis for such an exception (WP:BANEX is specific for a reason), nor was one intended in the remedy, nor do we provide exemptions to permit attacks and other disruptive posts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any valid reason for Fae to not be blocked for violating the topic ban. This is clearly in violation, and is directly in line with the repeated drama that led to the tban. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• I was filing a different request (for ElectCom) while this was being opened. I'll just paste it here:

Simultaneous report:

ElectCom clerking request @GeneralNotability, Mz7, and SQL: I believe this question (probably also posted to other candidate pages) is inappropriate and should be removed from any candidate pages on which it appears. Reasons: It is a blatant topic-ban violation. The editor – Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – is indefinitely banned from "from human sexuality, broadly construed ... includ[ing] ... transgender topics and issues" [151][152], and has been recently reminded by Cullen328 that it will be broadly construed. This restriction is still active. It contains a many times disproved falsehood, namely that I have an "apparent viewpoint that using of gender neutral pronouns should be seen as intrinsically funny". The editor has been making these false claims for over a year, until their T-ban shut that down. (It is in connection to an essay about self-aggrandizing commercial/political/religious language being used in Wikipedia's own voice; it used a particular pronoun as a framing device, but in a way completely unrelated to transgender usage. I'm actually pretty well-known by now as one of the chief defenders among the MoS regulars of singular-they and of MOS:GENDERID, especially as regards to not mis-gendering bio subjects.) This is a repeat of character assassination by this editor that is part of a long-term pattern of abuse against me in particular (and at least one other), for which they have previously narrowly escaped sanctions at both ANI and RFARB, until other same-topic disruption resulted in reinstatement of the topic-ban above. This is part of a pattern of transgender-related disruption dating back over a decade, including a years-long site ban. That ban was lifted on the specific condition that the editor not return to that sort of behavior [153], yet it continues unabated. This smearing of me in that post is completely extraneous, and bears no connection to the question the editor finally gets around to asking. It is purely a personal attack. The question (even if it came from someone else and did not contain the falsehood) is disingenuous and does not serve a legitimate candidate-assessment purpose. Its clear primary intent is to manufacture drama between various candidates (especially CaptainEek) and me. There is no extant (or historical, that I can recall) conflict between me and these other candidates, so this is just flat-out disruptive. Even the actual question at the end is not ArbCom-related at all, but is just "lobbying" for changes to a policy this editor would like to see happen, disguised as a question. Further administrative action might be warranted, since it is both a T-ban violation and a transgression of discretionary sanctions that cover this topic (of which the editor is well aware, having been repeatedly subjected to restrictions under them, and having been informed in an ARCA request that gender issues are definitely within the DS scope, even before the extant T-ban). As a standing candidate I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to pursue AE/ARCA/RFARB at this time, though I think this party must understand by now that further tendentious hostilities of this sort would [normally] lead there. If this had occurred in any other context, I would be filing a case request right now instead of this clerking request. This user has also been warned that further WP:HARASS-style behavior would be referred to WMF T&S, since it has also involved off-site actions by this party against both me, and another editor for whom serious real-life consequences resulted. I don't think that's warranted at this time, since the T-ban breach is likely to result in a non-trivial block at least.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

On the ElectCom page, I suggested deleting unanswered copies, refactoring answered ones to the talk page, and in any refactored ones deleting the personal attack if it was not addressed in the answer, or striking it if it was. (I.e., no need to nuke candidates' honest attempts to answer.) Update: I now support revdel; someone else can ask a similar question without attacks, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC); updated: 20:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Absent a reply from Fae explaining their thinking I would see this as a tban violation, as such I would remove the comments and reset the appeal clock (minimum 6 months from now). It could be argued that this was an important question (in which case it would likely be asked by others) but in this specific case it wasn't asked in a generalized form. Instead it specifically carried on an old feud by calling out SMcCandlish and his's SignPost article. That article and presumably it's author were highly contentious points for Fae. As such I don't see how this can be viewed as an inadvertent slip into a gray zone. Springee (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • An additional consideration is that the community blanked it for a reason. Continuing to dredge it up for unnecessary reasons does not serve the project's interests. Well all know the essay was a terrible idea, and I will catch hell for it for life, but we need not keep pointing people (many of them new editors) to Signpost in a state that the community did not want it to remain in even in an archived backissue. It was grossly inappropriate to do it again in this way, using it as a wedge to push an ArbCom-unrelated policy change agenda, a false personal attack, and an attempt to directly sow discord between editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Whether the question is germane is irrelevant. These questions (Fae's first enwiki edits for two months, I notice) are a clear topic ban violation and have clearly been placed there as a deliberate attempt to derail an ArbCom nomination. They should be removed ASAP and I wouldn't oppose a block, either, because it's just really poor and WP:POINTy behaviour. And this is coming from someone who was unimpressed with the original issue that is referred to. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• This is a clear violation of the topic ban. They questions need to be removed, and at the least a VERY strong reminder of the topic ban is needed, though a block is definitely warranted as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Seems to be a clever way of attacking SM while using the dispute as a self-aggrandizing wedge issue. Separate of any TB violation, the PA should be addressed as well through normal disciplinary actions. If the questions are not removed outright, the names should be removed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, in combination with the "if it's been answered ..." stuff above, name removal would be good, rather than just revdel'ing the lot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is a clear an unambiguous violation of Fae's topic ban. I have no opinion on any course of action going forward regarding what should or should not be done about it, but it is a violation, nonetheless. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I see a few candidates have answered my question, taking it in good faith the way it was intended, and based on the evidence. Candidate Guerillero's response demonstrates why this is a good question for Arbcom candidates and provides an opportunity to illuminate the issue in advance of the election completing and while the quoted WMF UCOC is being drafted - I was not around for the essay referenced getting published, but reading it now it makes me feel rather uncomfortable. The fact that the concerns of a lion's share of the commenters and discussants at the MfD found was addressed to the writers and the staff of The Signpost before publication and ignored gives me exceptional pause. I am shocked by the author's refusal to acknowledge that the essay was imprudent and his attempts to wave away the complaints as a manufactured controversy.

As raised above I think the issue must be raised whether the questions are disruptive. As per the link in the opening of this thread my question more than a year ago was "could you clarify whether this applies to the Arbcom clarification request which is about the misuse of anti-transgender language when it has literally nothing to do with article content or improvement, nor the two articles which were the only diffs raised in the thread about bullying that morphed into vote on ANI?" My understanding of the TBan created by a majority vote at ANI, was that the locus of that discussion and its scope was Wikipedia articles and their discussion pages. It never entered my head that this would extend to good faith factual questions in an Arbcom election, especially considering that our votes in the election happen on another site and my question has nothing to do with any Wikipedia article, nor any discussion about a Wikipedia article.

If folks want to make my question even more anonymised that's fine by me, though I'm unsure what key evidence you would still link to.

I am concerned about the active canvassing of this discussion in a thread off-wiki, where SMcCandlish has previously posted, and which is likely to have attracted attention, despite me not yet having been notified that this discussion exists, or being contacted by anyone directly in good faith for an explanation of my understanding of why in my understanding, my question and the Arbcom election process fell outside of the intention or the scope of the TBan. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I find your accusation that I was "canvassed" here and that somehow my opinion is invalid because of that to be baseless and I wish you to retract such an accusation. I found this discussion by reading it for the first time here at ANI, I reviewed the evidence, and I gave my opinion. Your accusation that I was influenced by some other discussion I was unaware of is unfounded. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. If you're claiming I've somehow been canvassed you can either point out where you think I've been canvassed, or you can retract and apologise. I do note that you were notified of this thread within one minute of it being started, so I find it hard to believe your claim that we were canvassed "despite me not yet having been notified that this discussion exists". ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The off-wiki discussion exists. Some of the accounts here have the same names there. These are observations, not accusations. --Fæ (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at WO and I don't see a single user who has commented there about this thread, who has the same name as anyone who has commented here in this thread. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have ANI on my watchlist, for obvious reasons. I hadn't seen the WO thread since last night (although I have looked again now). Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I absolutely, positively did not post about this ANI or that question on some offsite location. Fæ using their statement above to make false meatpuppetry accusations is a further DS breach in this topic, and using this space to take an advocacy and wikipolitical PoV stance about why their content matters so much, why the question, in a vacuum, has merit, and the adminstrative-social intent of it, rather than focusing on whether it was a T-ban breach and other matters related to the ANI issue, is a doubling-down additional breach of the T-ban. (Venues like this are T-ban exceptions only when the material is pertinent; and an admin directly reminded Fæ of this as well [154].) We're kind of past first law of holes territory now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• As one of the few who suggested GN throwing this to the community, I think the ElectCom decision of keeping the question and making it optional is the right way - some people view it as pertinent, some don't, but most will agree that it is quite WP:POINTy. Coming to the question of violation, I think that it can definitely be seen as one (as a lot of people have already pointed out). @Fæ: It would be helpful to provide links of where anything has been canvassed - iff it doesn't violate WP:OUTING. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  It would be easier if those that came here as a result of reading about it off-wiki were to state so. Past experience has shown that it's better to avoid driving on-wiki discussion with links to non-Wikimedia discussion sites. --Fæ (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note: There is related discussion (with additional redaction or placement suggestions) among the candidates here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Coordination#Question by Fæ  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• despite me not yet having been notified that this discussion exists What, apart from the ANI notification that the OP posted on your talkpage 2 hours ago? Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing that out. I was going by my notifications on Commons, I guess it was not showing as a ping, or maybe I dropped in on the page and didn't realise before moving on. --Fæ (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• With regard to discussions along the lines that because the Signpost essay was blanked, links to it are inappropriate, this seems irrelevant as the original essay was never blanked, it's at User:SMcCandlish/It and its continued existence there was defended by SMcCandlish rather than taking on that blanking would be appropriate. This seems a situation where you can't argue it both ways, that nobody should link to it, but the creator of it can still have the joke essay public. --Fæ (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Except no. MfD declined to delete it, and I later decided not to {{db-user}} it, because people who want to talk about it are free to examine it here, my scarlet letter, without tarring Singpost with it forever and ever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  This view of the facts seems to conflict with Well all know the essay was a terrible idea, and I will catch hell for it for life, but we need not keep pointing people (many of them new editors) to Signpost in a state that the community did not want it to remain in even in an archived backissue. However if you want me to change the links to the Signpost history, to the userspace essay which is still visible and searchable, then that would seem a minor change to the facts of the question to Arbcom candidates which I'm happy to do for you. The candidates generic question was illustrated with the notable example, not intended as a rehash of the facts of the deletion. --Fæ (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Read and think again; you're having some kind of comprehension glitch. My two statements are entirely compatible with each other. And you cannot change links in any of these posts. You seem to have forgotten why this ANI is open. Unless there's something substantive to address, I don't think I should engage directly with you any further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps the worst aspect, looking at Fæ's "defense" above, is that the propagandistic bent of Fæ's posts actually worked. The quote above, by a candidate steered to the old Signpost stuff (which is unrelated to the actual question) and with only Fæ's distorted view of about it to go on, shows the candidate to assume blindly "the author's refusal to acknowledge that the essay was imprudent", without checking. In actual reality, my own candidate questions page (among many other venues) does exactly the opposite of that assumption. Fæ seems to have genuinely succeeded in manufacturing "enemies" out of nowhere in the middle of ACE, and done so by poisoning the well with politicized, extraneous, bad-faith-assumptive, and untruthful dirt-mongering about another candidate instead of posting an honest question for the candidates. It's like the worst behavior of the 2020 US election is seeping into Wikipedia.
  I am now of a mind to support revdeling these Q&A blocks, and for the T-ban breach and DS breaches to result in re-imposition of the site ban. If someone wants to ask a more appropriate version, they can do so, and candidates who have already answered Fæ's grotesque version can just recycle their answers in the new Q&A block.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  

(edit conflict × 2) This was a very clear topic ban violation, breaking both the letter and the spirit. That Fæ was not aware that it would be a breach is not credible given the clarifications and previous discussions about it. This leads to two questions - 1) what sanction, if any, should Fæ receive for the topic ban, and 2) what should be done with the questions? The answer to 1) imho is a block is necessary. It would appear to be the first block for the violation, so 1 month would seem appropriate for a duration, with a concurrent 1 month block for the personal attacks. Regarding 2) I believe this should be decided by the election commissioners, but I have no problem with it being removed or collapsed with no prejudice against another user asking a related question in a civil manner if they see fit. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Closes go at the top not the bottom. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The clarification referenced stated "For the sake of clarity, this includes all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues." An Arbcom election question is not this based on a plain English reading, and this was my understanding based on my own request for clarification back in August 2019. --Fæ (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is a violation. It is starting a discussion (yes it is only two people, but a discussion can be two) about a topic you are TBAN'ned on. I also think that the question itself was rather pointed, though that isn't a issue, its that the TBAN violation is to comment on another user and not a accidental or good faith mention. I therefore think some level of sanction is needed. I think a block of at least a month is needed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• I also support a block (of any duration). Fae's made less than 150 edits in 15 months since being TBAN'd (last 150 contribs), including the edits related to whether Fae violated the TBAN at an RFA last year (see bottom of the contribs list): not counting TBAN-related edits, I think the number drops below 100. This includes zero edits in the last two months. Taking a wikibreak from this project is no problem; returning from a wikibreak to essentially continue the feud that led to the TBAN is a problem. It creates a lot of work for a lot of editors, as we see here and at the Arbcom pages right now, and as we saw with regard to the RFA last year. The questions should be removed/revdel'd; someone else can ask them if they want to; but that's up to the election commission. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Fae has essentially quit editing and only showed up now to cause trouble. A one-month block would be lenient. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not "quit editing". I have been editing via a ToR browser due to the Uni systems being made very unsafe after the systems were brought down with a successful trojan, the case made the national papers. This has stopped me editing here as my IP has been blocked for the last 2 months as you notice, my edits today are on a secondary system. The TBan does have the effect of making me unable to edit the biographies that I was creating for the past few years, which has resulted in editing at a tiny fraction of past levels. This is why I asked the clarification question in 2019. My edits since have been relatively minor changes, I believe mostly connected to my Wikimedia Commons projects, correcting Scientific Racism across the projects, and supporting projects for the User Group I am mostly associated with along with consulting off-wiki on the UCOC and even having discussion with the reformed T&S folks. --Fæ (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)