Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015

Numbering British Prime Ministers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We don't number British Prime Ministers in the way that we do American Presidents. I am sure I can recall threads here about it, with users being blocked/banned in relation to this. Can anyone help remember which users or threads? It's started again, Willwal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) going through them all. DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Also in the last few days TobiasRagg2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• I've blocked Willwal for twelve hours to put a stop to the immediate disruption (though since it seems this was done with an automated tool of some sort, it's probably too late). It's improbable that this is being done manually (at a rate of more than one every three seconds) but whatever tool they're using doesn't leave an edit summary. Either that, or they deliberately lined up dozens of tabs and published them all as fast as they could, presumably to avoid someone stopping them. Either way, this is not on. GoldenRing (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've since unblocked again on their assurance this won't happen again. GoldenRing (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Willwal was previously told to stop doing it in 2016, the comment is still on their talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know what editing subculture this is from, but this stunt is periodically performed by others on Greek prime ministers as well. Dr. K. 17:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Actually, we have a whole article on this topic. EEng 17:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspected undisclosed paid editing/COI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user has since the creation of their account created the following pages (in chronological order):

• Vasundhara Raje aur Vikasit Rajasthan
• Vijay Nahar
• Swarnim Bharat Ke Swapndrishtha Narendra Modi
• Aadhunik Bharat Ke Bramharshi-Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya
• Prarambhik Islamic Aakraman Evam Bhartiya Pratirodh
• Samrat Bhoj Parmar
• Samrat Mihir Bhoj Evam Unka Yug
• Sheeladitya Samrat Harshvardhan Evam Unka Yug
• Samrat Yashovarman
• Hinduva Surya Maharana Pratap
• Samrat Bhoj Parmar (2016)

These pages are all books written by Vijay Nahar and one page is about the author himself. In addition, the user has created Global Institute of Technology, which seems unrelated to the rest.

The user's username not just explicitely mentions "nahar", but what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samrat Mihir Bhoj Evam Unka Yug seems to quite clearly show they have some COI. Power~enwiki said: "If the ISBN has not been entered into databases, it may be too soon for an article". Less than 24 hours later, Tapanvnahar shares a picture of the letter in which the ISBN was shared with the publishing company, saying that it will soon be added to the online database. Power~enwiki said that time was probably not the solution because the book was published 4 years ago. Then, the user said: "The letter issued for publisher is already attached. Still we are trying to process for updation in online database" (emphasis mine). The "we" seems to mean "we" as in, "we, the author and publisher". I then asked: "Are you the author of the book or in any other way afflifiated with the book/publishing company?". They replied: I am not author and not affiliated with the book/publishing company in any way." I then asked: "Then how do you have the letter in which the ISBN is assigned?". They then said: "I mailed and asked for ISBN evidence regarding this purpose."

This would be possible, but I am not convinced. The user's use of words, combined with their very narrow interest and the fact they had this letter, seem to impy to me that this is undislosed paid editing/COI. --MrClog (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what MrClog said. However, it would help to have a Hindi reader to check the (scanned) Hindi-language references before taking action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am going to indef the user since this is blatant COI and promotional editing, which the user was told about back in December 2018. That, along with the responses at the AFD, show that the continued COI editing is not an honest mistake. See also this deleted draft, which shows that the problem stretches back to 2012. In fact, I have yet to find a single mainspace/draftspace edit by the user that doesn't involve a COI.

Side note: I haven't looked into this at depth but the IPs commenting at the current AFD appear to be the user's sock/meatpuppets. Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles tagged or quarantined as appropriate. MER-C 16:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It perhaps doesn't make much of a difference in how we handle the issue but, for various reasons that I won't spell out, I believe this is a case of COI editing rather than UPE. Abecedare (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Likely block evasion by Faruk danyaya through 105.112.33.190

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Faruk danyaya (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Faruk_danyaya
• 105.112.33.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I noticed the ip is adding images uploaded by Faruk danyaya. There's also the problem of copyright violations with the images. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: Blocked for 31 hours and logged at SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faruk danyaya). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Göbbelschen Gabriel Schnee and possible antisemitic edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gabriel Schnee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Note globally renamed Göbbelschen to Gabriel Schnee.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I recently blocked Göbbelschen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for an inappropriate username (this user has been blocked on Commons and Italian Wikipedia for the username as well). For explanation, I'm going to take the liberty of quoting User:elcobbola's report at UAA:

Name is German for "Little Göbbels" (and that doesn't quite catch it: adding "chen" to a noun makes it not only diminutive, but adds the connotation of cuteness. For example, Hase (rabbit) becomes Häschen (bunny - not just a little rabbit, a cute little rabbit)). User has edited Francis Parker Yockey (a neo-facist), Death in June ("neofolk" band considered hate music by the SPLC), Johannes Stark (Hitler supporter and main figure in movement to remove Jewish scientists from German physics), Expulsions and exoduses of Jews (name speaks for itself), etc., suggesting the reference to Göbbels is deliberate--indeed, see edit of this sort to Henry Ford.

I would like other editors to please review (and revert where appropriate) Göbbelschen's contributions, which are focused on Nazi, fascist, and Jewish topics. Also, I would like admins to review whether the username soft block should be changed to a hard block. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me this about says it all. Also worth mentioning the user has been warned about attempts "to emphasis Jewishness" and warned about the unsourced additions of expulsions of Jews. User falsely claimed to be an admin. For sister project context: every last one of the user's uploads were copyvios with false attribution. In aggregate: something is amiss - WP:NOTHERE? Эlcobbola _talk 18:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This user appears not here to build an encyclopedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. I have no problem with someone only editing fascist/far-right articles, as long as it's all done for the good of WP. However, this editor does look like a textbook WP:NOTHERE. On the plus side, they enjoy Sudoku... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Welp I unblocked them. Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing. Perhaps they can now explain themselves here.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Per his user page, he is a fan of Death in June. For an 18yo, he's quite a polyglot and world traveler.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Gabriel is also an angel responsible for the acts of destruction of people God wants to be annihilated. Schnee (German for "snow") was a Nazi known for writing a colonial revisionist encyclopedia called Deutsches Kolonial-Lexikon [1] [2]. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Levivich 22:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Why are we being so hesistant about this? A username change and related block/unblock shouldn't launder edits such as this one from just yesterday. @Dlohcierekim and Edgar181: any objections to me applying a not here block? Abecedare (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• No. I unblocked him. Based on the above dif, I reblocked him.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Abecedare: That edit is all one needs-- the quintessence of not here. And now we have the resulting state change to blocked.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. By the way, your username unblock was reasonable given the information that had been brought to light at that point. But given the other details mentioned above... whew. Abecedare (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat on Tuff TV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the article Tuff TV, we've been dealing with the television network's parent company continuing to insist it's returning the network (which went off the air about a year ago and insists was a 'pre-planned hiatus') to the air, although there is no proof of that at all to speak of, and they've been trying to add WP:COI edits to change the page to their narrative, through IPs and a few months ago, a user account which was blocked on sight. I reverted their newest COI edits last night...to wake up to an IP legal threat (and of course, reversion), which obviously will chill me from editing the page any further, so I don't know what else to do here besides cease and ask for admin action, along with a RFP (I am not notifying the IP out of fear of retaliation). Thank you Nate • (chatter) 19:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: First of all, I feel sorry that you have received such a threat. I have warned the user, admins should feel free to block if needed. Please note that the IP is registered to The Connection, Inc. ([3]), and that organisations seems to have nothing to do with the article's subject (right?). I am going to check the rest of the article history for now. --MrClog (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that sucks, sorry you had to experience that. It happens to the best of us. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If necessary, an email can be sent to The Connection, Inc., informing them that their IP is used to make legal threats in the name of another seemingly unrelated company. Mrschimpf: if you would like to discuss the legal threat with legal experts, you should feel free to email legalwikimedia.org about the situation, they may be able to advise you. --MrClog (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Thank you for the quick action MrClog...I seem to run into this every couple years because I'm intent on keeping neutrality on network articles, so hopefully this is all that needs to be done. I appreciate the help here. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks like they continued to persist @MrClog: and @Liz:; a new IP identifying themselves as 'director of marketing Jonathan Horvath' posted this to my talk page (coding it in black and orange to make it look like a warning), then re-reverted the edits. That was enough for Black Kite, who put one month of protection on the page, so hopefully this is now over. Nate • (chatter) 19:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• This looks to me like a sock. "I don't know who that was", who? If you're a new editor, how do you know that someone posted such a legal threat when I removed that message from Nate's talk the day it was posted there? Makes no sense. (pinging Bbb23, who may want to block this IP as they blocked the previous one) --MrClog (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

IP vandalism - genocide denial

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP 93.138.15.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and plus one registered user (from time to time) are deleting references on Serbs of Croatia (without any coherent edit description or adding a section on TP) and denying World War 2 genocide by Ustaše on Serbs, Jews and other minorities... I hope that the article will be protected for some time and those editors dealt with accordingly. The same IP made a number of vandalisms which led to the protection of Ivan Gundulić and other articles. P.S: I'm not sure how to add the info about the ongoing report to the IP adress since it's not a registered user. Mm.srb (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The only international tribunal that made the genocide was the Hague for Srebrenica. These are Serbian lie and propaganda. There are enough people complaining about that user Mm.srb who writes lies against Croats and other peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippopo (talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I have given the user a first and final warning and will request protection of the Serbs of Croatia page. --MrClog (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

IP and their sock (Pippopo) reported to AIV. --MrClog (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I've given a 72 hour block to Pippopo for edit warring. If it should be more or less (or if I blocked the wrong side or should have blocked both, or did anything wrong in general), feel free to fix it. Κσυπ Cyp   14:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry that you had to read and deal with something like this. I can't belive that someone can deny that the murder of several hundreds of men, women and children (with camps for children only!) by local Croatian Nazi puppets is genocide and rule it out on account of verdicts by ICTY tribunal which is in fact dealing with the Yugoslav civil war which took place in the 90s. Thank you for your quick action. Mm.srb (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no Yugoslav civil war. There is only a Greater Serbian aggression with the Yugoslav army to other countries in the region in order to create a Big Serbia. Read the American Civil War and learn what a civil war is. In a civil war, the name of the country and the territory does not change before and after the war and there are no independent states.

POV pushing aside, I think that these 3 days will be just a pause for this sort of disruptive editing. Anyway, we'll see. Mm.srb (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possibly Dopenguins IP sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

91.132.1.149 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been reinstating edits like this with the reason "revert sock User:TheVicarsCat. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done: blocked and reverted as such. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Somaliland PoV pushing

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golis_Mountains&action=history&offset=2019072515&limit=9

I smell off-wiki coordination. The last user already had blocks for similar PoV edits, hence bring it directly here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what seems to be the issue. I edited the article to indicate the Golis mountain range was in Somaliland, similar to how the Alishan Range article indicates that the mountain range is in Taiwan and not China. As with Taiwan, Somaliland is a de facto independent country. Koodbuur (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. And whether or not you were recruited, your edit was clearly disruptive. Would you care to answer whether you were coordinating off-wiki? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No. I had the Golis Mountains article in my watchlist, and made my edit without taking into consideration prior edit warring between other editors. I apologize if my edit was disruptive as I did not intend to engage in an edit war. Koodbuur (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

POV-pushing at Serbs

Obsuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit-warring at a fast pace adding unsourced POV about Serbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) not being a nation and unsourced OR about the the terms "Serb" and "Serbian". Characteristically, their last edit-summary is "truth". I think this heavy-handed POV needs to stop and this user needs a block. Dr. K. 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you and Mm.srb or how is he called are pushing POV and not letting others add true content to the page because you don't like it personally. Please learn what is a POV. Content on Wikipedia does not need to be sourced; add {{fact}} if you think it's arguable or controversial but do not edit war and revert with no reason, removing all my additions. You need a block, and everyone who makes edit war with no reason. --Obsuser (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Obsuser has broken 3RR multiple times on Serbs. We need a block asap. I will also open a report at 3RRN. Dr. K. 12:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dr.K. also broken 3RR on Serbs. We need a block asap. I will also open a report at 3RRN. --Obsuser (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, I have not and retaliatory reports will not help your eight (yes, 8) reverts at Serbs. Dr. K. 12:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Mm.srb also broken 3RR on Serbs. We need a block asap. I will also open a report at 3RRN. --Obsuser (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• We are trying to keep the article stable and not let the sort of hate speech go by freely. Denying the existence of a nation and putting up local tabloids and POV nationalistic authors as sources is not the way to go. Mm.srb (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have just blocked for several reasons. 1) clear edit warring 2) Obsuser clearly acknowledged that they would be blocked the next time they added unsourced information to Wikipedia with I know and immediately proceeded to re-add unsourced information 3) removal of information without providing sources to support 4) refusing to engage with the community and talk but instead continuing to edit war. This being said the other editors in this situation didn't help, but inflammed it. Remember continual reversion of edits is only acceptable in cases of clear vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Upon clearer review of the edits, Mm.srb has also been blocked for extremely clear edit warring also. Dr K has not been blocked on purely technical grounds, despite the fact that they clearly know about the edit warring rules. Every editor involved in this was at fault here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My only mistake was that I reverted 3 times trying to stop the POV-push. I should have reverted once or twice. But I stopped my revetrs and did not continue them. I opened an ANI report and a 3RRN report after I stopped my reverts. The article is still at the blocked edit-warrior's version and I did not revert because I have stopped the reverting on my part. But you know what? You can have the article at any state. If that is what I get for trying to stop the POV-pushing, I will not edit this article again. It is simply not worth getting involved in such crap and being threatened with blocks. Dr. K. 12:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That was a clear content dispute that should never have gotten to where it did. 2 people have been blocked over it now. This should have gone to the talk page instead of continual reversions and is clearly a content issue, not obvious vandalism. And as an Admin I will not roll back the article to another state as that would be taking sides in a content dispute and presuming one editor is correct over another. That being said you're more than welcome to continue editing the article, just not to keep reverting other users in an edit war. Just take the disputes to the talk page or ask other neutral parties to intervene instead of continual reversions of other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 12:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it was not a clear content dispute. It was POV-pushing of unsourced content by a WP:TRUTH-quoting user. And I did I take it to the talkpage, but the other editor did not respond. As I said above, my only mistake was that I pushed my reverts to three instead of one or two. And no, I am taking Serbs off my watchlist. It doesn't pay to try to stop POV-pushing zealots if I am going to be threatened with blocks and be given warnings after stopping the reversions. Simply not worth it. Dr. K. 12:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it was not a clear content dispute. It was POV-pushing of unsourced content by a WP:TRUTH-quoting user. That's called a content dispute. And the user that you had the dispute with was present on the talk page. Did they just not respond fast enough for you? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't get excited. You are defending the insertion of unsourced OR. The material speaks for itself. I assume you understand obnoxious OR POV when you see it. Here it is:

Adjective for the English term Serbs (i.e. Serb in its singular form) is "Serb" and not "Serbian", which is adjective for noun Serbians (i.e. Serbian in its singular form) or for noun Serbia. Note that Serbian language uses inconsistent form of the adjective for denoting national Serbs (Serbians) affiliation, српски / srpski (instead of србијански / srbijanski, per noun for the country Србија / Srbija; adjectives србијански / srbijanski are used with proper meaning in Bosnian language, that of country/national affiliation); thus српски / srpski denotes both national (Serbian) and ethnic (Serb) affiliations, due to Serbian ethnic nationalism.

In addition the edit erased that "Sebs are a nation". Now, if you think this homemade crap classifies as content, let's just agree to disagree. And no, they did not respond to me when I told them on the talkpage to supply sources for their unsourced WP:TRUTH. They rapid-fire edit-warred instead quoting TRUTH, and other nonsense. Dr. K. 02:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am baffled that a POV pushing on something as absurd and incorrect as nation denial was treated the same way as reverting those edits. The refs given were and are propagandistic garbage. It was not a content dispute but a clear case of POV zealot, who has quite a ban history on Serbian Wikipedia. I'm not pointing fingers here, just stating the facts. This was a nice example of misuse of freedom of speech... Dr. K. neatly explained the rest. Mm.srb (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

TracyMcClark July 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

See previous discussion at AN/I concerning TracyMcClark and see final warning.

After final warning TracyMcClark stated Aha!? Any facts? No? Aha! As a result of that comment, TracyMcClark was topic banned for 6 months.

After being topic banned for 6 months from the e-cigarettes topic area, TracyMcClark stated "Your lack of fact-checking and your aggression (and else) towards me as a result is noted." TracyMcClark is not acknowledging the rude behavior. QuackGuru (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

TracyMcClark just wrote One more thing: You involved your personal feelings and punished me b/c I didn't agree with your personal assessment as a new administrator. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Srsly? Ignore it. Everyone gets grumpy after a block or ban. We allow somewhat more latitude on users' own talk pages. Unwatch it and go about your business, is my recommendation. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

After being given advice from JzG, TracyMcClark stated in the edit summary: "Don't play me for an idiot". QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, just a grumpy user after being blocked. It isn't a personal attack, so just Let It Be. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

TracyMcClark was not blocked. TracyMcClark was banned from e-cigarettes for 6 months. The last time I can remember TracyMcClark directly edited an e-cigarette related article was on 1 March 2017. That edit was reverted. TracyMcClark does not edit this topic area frequently. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brazilian date vandal

User 189.47.93.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be exclusively vandalizing dates in numerous articles. They also seem to have done this from 189.47.88.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) where they received a block for persistent unsourced edits in January, and probably from other IPs that I haven't found yet. The changes are mainly to terms of office of politicians, and often to dates that are unsourced in the article. All their edits are at the least unsourced, but so far I've verfied that that they're actually false in the articles Zalmay Khalilzad, Robert Finn (diplomat), Phil Gordon (politician), Joe E. Kernan, Paul H. O'Neill, and Berlusconi II Cabinet. I've reverted those to the correct dates that had already been in the articles, and added reliable sources for them. The change to Estelle Getty was already reverted as unsourced; it also contradicts multiple sources, though I haven't yet found one reliable enough to add to the article. Since the date-changing seems to be all they do, and all the ones I've verified have been wrong, I'm convinced that this is a pattern of deliberate vandalism. Some of the dates in the other articles are a bit obscure and hard to find sources for, but I think the changes should be reverted anyway, as it seems very likely that they're all fake. --IamNotU (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this is probably the same person as the IP that was previously blocked, but I gave a warning. I guess ping me if they continue to change dates (or report to WP:AIV). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll report back if they keep doing it, and probably revert their other edits as unsourced [looks like MarnetteD beat me to it - thanks]. I also looked further back in 189.47.* and found 189.47.95.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who received warnings and a block for the same kind of numerous improbable date changes. That's all I could find. I thought maybe someone would recognize them - since those three IPs each did many date changes a day, but only for a couple of days each, I'm guessing there must be a bunch more IPs, but I don't know where to look. Not that I have time for another project right now, but I thought I should point it out... --IamNotU (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Personnal attacks

• Possibly related : report above Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Denniss try to accuse me to be a sockpûppet. After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Regice2020, he continue [4] [5] to accuse me to be a sockpuppet. It's not acceptable. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you edit-warring with them on their talk page using different IPs?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Denniss modify my messages many times. He give me warning whithout reason. I ask him to stop accusation of sockpuppet, but he clears my message and continue. I ask him to don't modify my messages, but he clears my message and continue. I don't want to be registred and i can't do anything for my moving IP. I don't try to hide. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The SPI was created by me, and I am, as far as I know, not Denniss. You (and other IPs in the same range) seem to be demanding respect. However, respect doesn't imply we have to agree with everything you're saying and doing. I don't think removing excessive indentation from a message is not acceptable, as it certainly doesn't alter the meaning (see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments, it mentions "fixing format errors"). The page Ryzen is definitely not under control of AMD right now (otherwise, you should be able to link to a few edits by AMD employees adding advertising-like content or something). It doesn't appear to be advertisement either to me. Edible Melon (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I have never says Denniss created the SPI. But he knows the result, and continue to accuse me. It's not the place for talking about Ryzen. 2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Why Denniss modify indentation? I talk to Sakkura, i don't speak to Carewolf. I ask to Denniss to don't modify my message. He clears my message from his talk page[6] and modify my message again [7]. It's not acceptable. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If so, place your message where it should be. Edible Melon (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

How should 'Associated acts' disruption be dealt with?

Sorry, but I'm at a loss for where to ask this. Looking at pending changes, I came across 12.206.84.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has popped up today making changes to the 'associated acts' section of various rappers' infoboxes. Then I found 70.158.101.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) doing the same thing, on some of the same pages. Is this LTA, or just a common form of disruption? Should I go to AIV, SPI, or just assume good faith and revert per BLP? Would I be out of line to rollback all of these changes, or should I let someone more familiar with the topics take a look? In the past I've left these kinds of changes for others to review, but I'd like to get a sense of how I should approach this going forward. Thoughts? —Rutebega (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Same kind of edits also coming from 65.46.221.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), though that one does have about 50 edits dating back to 2016, and didn't take an interest in rappers until today. —Rutebega (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

These are both very likely long term abuse. Mass changing of Assosiated acts is a common thing you will see. StaticVapor message me! 22:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

STATicVapor, thanks, I had a feeling. I know I've seen it before a number of times, but never gave it much thought. Reasonable then just to mass-revert, and report at AIV if they're persistent? —Rutebega (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rutebega: many pending changes are inexplicable edits to infoboxes. Most infoboxes have instructions, and the associated manual of style may also help. For example: {{infobox person}} and MOS:DOCTOR both say that you shouldn't include "Dr." as an honorific in a BLP because it's too common. So, what you want to do is look at {{Infobox musical artist}} and see what it says about associated artists. As it happens, it has a list of uses that should be avoided. You can revert edits like that if you want. There isn't really an ideal place to report petty disruption that isn't vandalism, but ANI is fine. By the way, you can check an IP editor's geolocation by clicking on the "geolocate" link near the bottom of Special:Contributions. For some ISPs, this is pure guesswork, and for others it's pretty accurate. Schools are usually described as a business customer or are allocated to a local government. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NinjaRobotPirate, that's very helpful. It didn't occur to me to check the template documentation for usage guidelines, but I figured it had to have been discussed at some point. Between Static and myself, most of the edits have been reverted, and these IPs have stopped at least for now, so I don't think blocking would gain anything at this point. Appreciate your input. —Rutebega (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Long-term sockpuppetry at AFD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination)
• Single-purpose accounts:
  • Ssmock (talk · contribs)
  • Ibson.writes (talk · contribs)
  • Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk · contribs)
• Timeline given by User:Koncorde:
  • 2019-03-13T04:19:54: edit to Sri Lanka Navy by Mzmadmike
  • 2019-03-13T04:20:27: edit to Sri Lanka Navy by Mzmadmike
  • 2019-03-13T04:22:36: edit to Sri Lanka Army by Ibson.writes
• Edits by Trasel (talk · contribs) confirmed sockpuppet accounts to Michael Z. Williamson:
  • edit
  • edit
  • edit
  • edit
  • edit
• Single-purpose accounts in the 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson, whose edits were long-since stale for the 2013 checkuser check of Trasel:
  • Thomas Gooch (talk · contribs) — "who I know"
  • Logic11 (talk · contribs)
  • Flight-ER-Doc (talk · contribs)
• Single-purpose accounts in 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles, whose edits were again long-since stale by the 2013 check-user check:
  • Matt mg (talk · contribs)
  • Mojoelvis (talk · contribs)
  • Flight-ER-Doc (talk · contribs)
  • one example out of several there of signature faking of an account that wasn't created (Special:Log/Kcs2c) until 7 months later.
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23#James Wesley Rawles (closed)
• Article subject: Mzmadmike (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trasel/Archive points to this as a pattern, where at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse dormant accounts woke up to participate in the AFD discussion, as has happened here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It points out a connection between three people, the subject of this biographical article, James Wesley Rawles, and one Jeff Trasel. The Trasel sockpuppet-farm also edited James Wesley Rawles, not shown with diffs because there's quite a lot of it.

All of the new single-purpose accounts are, once again, failing to discuss sources and whether a biographical subject is properly documented by the world, making it likely that this 2nd AFD discussion will be as de-railed by that as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson were.

In retrospect, the "did not materially affect outcome of AFD" conclusion in 2008 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trasel seems quite wrong.

Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Proof of not just canvassing but harassment from the author's FB account [8]has been posted to the AfD by an IP. User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång where do you think we should go with this now? Doug Weller talk 15:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm involved at the AfD, but I think a block for User:Mzmadmike is in order for calling User:Fabrictramp a pha66otte and linking to their Wikipedia user page. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I was just reading through that, even found an interesting source. I have no idea whatsoever, this is new to me, slightly creepy though. Wait and see? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Doug Weller The behavior of User:Mzmadmike and his toxic followers is so far beyond the pale... note that they also tried to doxx @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Doug Weller but note that I am now involved at the AFD as well.--Jorm (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Recommending blocking the editor-in-question. I'd post more, but these 'edit conflicts' are annoying. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we want this guy around anyway: "You are proof that Pinochet did nothing wrong". All of his edits to Talk:Nazi Party are, frankly, insane.--Jorm (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I just made the sound my cat makes when he's got a hairball. [9] 73.76.220.8 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant "out of order" and have fixed that. @Fabrictramp: my ping failed. I've had 2nd thoughts about the block, we need to crack down hard on harassment. A community ban seems in order. I'll still vote Keep if the evidence is there. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree and support block/ban. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this. The AfD is definitely a train wreck, much like the previous one. Sadly, if someone had added the info about being a Hugo nominee prior to the speedy request, I wouldn't have deleted the article.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• this bit of slander created by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncle_G). However, if you bother looking at my user page (which, granted, I just got around to updating, not that I'd really given a damn about it otherwise), you'll see that your casual insult is invalid. Unless I've been a sockpuppet since 2006. That your first impulse with "but I don't like what these people are saying!" is to accuse all and sundry of being sockpuppets is insulting. The groupthink that "oh, it MUST be sockpuppeting/canvasing because a group of people disagree with me!" is simply astounding. NB - moved to end of comment stack per request. Do NOT revert my comments again. Edit to add: Folks, your behavior _in these discussion_ is evidence of harassment.

- Speedy deletion for no justifiable reason other than personal preference (note no RfD, and the deletor didn't bother to check to see if there was a prior RfD - just went ahead and deleted the page immediately on their personal choice) - accusations of sockpuppet/meatpuppet against any account that disagrees with this behavior - reversion of comments, de novo - proposed group punishment. From further down this discussion: "and I would go so far as to consider putting in place a "zero-tolerance" policy for everyone he's canvassed so that he can't use his supporters to proxy for him in his ban". Given that the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up, it's an attempt to silence a group because they say things that you don't like. Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment. This is all personally witnessed in the last 18 hours, and is supported by the change logs. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• "[...] the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up" He quite literally rallied his fanbase on Facebook to vote Keep at the AfD in question. If that's not WP:CANVASSING by definition, then I don't know what is. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment" as a response to the undeniable evidence of WP:CANVAS violations through the facebook post and the attacks directly on the admin involved in the initial deletion, along with the attempt to classify Uncle G's evidence summation as "slander". This seems to be DARVO as a tactic. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    • So how, then DO you classify an attempt to label a dissenting an opinion as a sockpuppet (in the discussion) then refer it here for further action, in a <16 hour window? What's the evidence supporting the assertion (and "hasn't edited a lot in the last 4 months" isn't evidence. If, for example, he'd asked for "what's your background" prior to making the assertion, I could have done _what _ wound up doing_, and documented prior wiki presence. But he pulled the trigger on sockpuppet allegation with essentially no supporting evidence. Given that the use of the term is not just technical, but specifically to denigrate statements in disagreement with his position, it meets the definition of the term slander "1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." Hell, at least I've got a verifiable user ID tied to this discussion. You're posting anon.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Posting anon" -- sounds Shakespearean. "Wilt thou be posting anon, milady?" EEng 05:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Alas, we must post post haste.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rumplestiltskin1992: if you were not canvassed, how did you come by the article to post a "KEEP" as a collective within 30 minutes of each other? Did you have this one article on your "watch-list"? Why this article? If your old user account is your only prior editing account, then that also shows limited editing history and certainly no inkling as to why or how this page would end up on your watchlist? Are there are other accounts than Cprael that you haven't revealed you have edited under? It is not slander to suggest that a whole swathe of individuals all joined one conversation thread in order to make an argument in favour of someone that they support. Sockpuppet also does not require you to be a single individual (i.e. Mike himself). You can sock (or meatpuppet) as individuals, but the intent remains the same - an attempt to unduly influence a process, or give the illusion of weight and support. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mzmadmike to compile the evidence of the numerous puppets by Mzmadmike, whether they be socks or meats or meatsocks or sockmeats or bacon socks[10]. I ask that @Koncorde: or @Uncle G: or another experienced individual review it and if they feel necessary, set it to request further attention by the investigators. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: @Uncle G: Apparently someone has decided that my attempt to follow the process to collect this information is "vandalism" and deleted it. That's sad. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Imadethisstupidaccount: just use your Sandbox. Koncorde (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

[[re|Koncorde}} I'm going to quote directly from WP:CANVAS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." Note that there is an explicit requirement of intent _written into the guideline_. At the time that I joined the discussion, the ENTIRE post/thread consisted of the following:

- MZW Post: Deleted because it's not a credible page? + link to his personal page
Down to
-- Michael Z Williamson Well, if anyone can find the archive and restore, please do so.
That was it. I happened to be online at the time, on Facebook, and the post popped on a refresh, which is why I saw it, and responded on Wiki. My browsing history supports that, and I'll post _that_ if necessary. Within 12 hours I'd been labelled a sockpuppet (despite the fact that my prior account dates back to 2006, and with no independent contact). So... in that subset, show me the intention? Because intent is _required_ by the Wiki standard, as cited above. If you can't demonstrate intent, you have no argument. Further, there's the attempt above to further push the "sockpuppet" argument. It's insulting, and as demonstrated above, the entire line of argument (sockpuppeting as slanderous allegation, and yes, I DO use that word within it's definition; allegations of canvassing when intent _can not_ be proven) proceeds from false premises and a refusal to actually read and abide by the published standards.
What I'm especially bothered by is that this is turning into an edit war. Someone has now started an AfD for a second Baen author for, apparently, no other reason than they participated here, found out the other author's name, and decided to delete them too. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipha66otes" and more from his asshatted moron squad. http://www.facebook.com/michaelzwilliamson/posts/1021742094188013

He makes a claim about predicting something that was proposed on Wikipedia by JayMaynard. And he calls for his supporters to start vandalizing wikipedia. And he says "they're all -ha66ottes" and "burn it to the ground". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.0.54 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, he said it _was_ a predictable action. Given the extensive retaliation that came out of the whole "Sad Puppies" mess, he has a legitimate point.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Link is broken. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

So how do we go around dealing with the meatpuppets? Seeing as a couple of users on Michael's Facebook thread (not necessarily just Michael himself this time) are starting to link to pretty much *any* politics-related BLP that is being nominated for deletion. --letcreate123 (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why every SFF author nominated for AfD has been a midlist Baen author, that every one of them meets the requirement for significance, and that not one other author, from any other publisher or political persuasion, has been so nominated? In this case, I would suggest that (a) correlation _is_ causation, and (b) that the continued assertion of meatpuppetry are an attempt to pre-emptively taint adverse commentary. In the legal community, there's a concept called SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). This smells like the Wiki version of that. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Besides the fact that I can't understand your first sentence (ie how can someone explain "that every one of them meets the requirement for significance"), are you saying you checked all deletion nominations for science fiction authors to know that they've all been midlist Baen authors? Doug Weller talk 10:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seconding @Letcreate123:, what can be done about the WP:CANVASsed issues going on? The article subject has been continually posting some of the most vile things [11] I've ever seen come out of someone's mouth to encourage people not only to come to wikipedia but to engage in vandalism [12]. There is also apparently a private page where further WP:CANVAS may be happening. [13] "Dovid Steele If they are able to read your posts, come over to FREEHOLD" "Dovid Steele Group. Not so much a fan group as just a place for Mad Mike to hide. if you seek admittance please answer all the vetting questions as they are designed to weed out the leftwing freaks." as well as apparently one Larry Correia has put out to a private WP:CANVAS call at [14], as described [15] "Jeff Paquet Larry C has noted it, also and asked if any of his fans can help" 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

AfD's just been indef semi'd by an admin, that should hopefully cut out any more canvassing in there. Peeps will still prolly talk in the AfD talk page but hopefully it should bear no disruptive effect on the AfD itself. --letcreate123 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Williamson's still sore because his puffy-shirt glam shot didn't make the cover of Women's Wear Daily. EEng 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this [16] is so far beyond the pale. Written by Williamson: "Prediction: The next author's page the dog-fellators at Wikipee will try to sabotage is Brad Torgersen." Can the prohibition on WP:MEATPUPPET please be extended to his ban? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Also his followers are now making up falsehoods ("Alicia Stockton That's in line with the hierarchy. They apparently tried to go after John Ringo's page yesterday with zero success."). This is something to be aware of as they may themselves be planning something, and I suggest John Ringo and Brad Torgersen both be pre-emptively locked to prevent any bad faith activity. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Huh. I wonder if his friend who uploaded the silk-nightie picture has any pictures illustrating his interest in zoophilia and urolagnia. I was going to label him a "potty mouth" but I have the awful feeling that might turn out to be literally rather than just figuratively true. EEng 15:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

At this point simply deny recognition of any kind to whatever schemes he's executing off-wiki, including (but not limited to) his "predictions". AfD's already been protected, user's already been banned, meats will eventually be dealt with individually, and all will be resolved. --letcreate123 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Letcreate123: FYI, [17] happened right before a commenter on the Facebook thread wrote "Brad R. Torgersen's page has been nominated for Deletion...", and Williamson previously called for his followers to log out and vandalize. I am going to request page protection for John Ringo and Brad Torgersen on this basis. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Pre-emptive protections aren't a thing. That said, there's no harm in pointing them out here so that admins and rollbackers can watchlist the pages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Propose community ban on User:Mzmadmike for harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See above. I might reconsider if he deletes his post, apologises there and here and halts the thread, but I don't know if he can do the latter.Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm very reluctant to go down the road of blocking people for comments made off-wiki, even when they're about Wikipedia editors, unless they fall into very specific categories like credible death threats. Sure, his fans are being annoying, disruptive and unacceptably rude, but admins get that kind of crap every time they delete an article on anyone with any kind of fan-base. If there's recent evidence of him being problematic on Wikipedia, that's obviously a different matter, but most of his recent edits just seem to be routine and appropriate updates to articles. ‑ Iridescent 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• • @Iridescent: there was a time when I would have agreed with you. But I think things have changed and we need to be a lot less tolerant of off-wiki abuse. And in this case he started the thread with the abuse - I don't care about his fans, but it's not surprising that they are being disruptive in a thread where he starts with abuse. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• • So, what category does specifically posting a link to the admin's talk page along with screenshots of the userpage, and calling them a "pha66otte" around a group of people to whom abusive behavior and slurs of all sorts are all over the common discussion, fall into? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Because to me that looks like posting a giant sign and saying "sic 'em". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban. I don't think we want this person in our playground, and I'm not particularly fussy about how they're kicked out. As long as the actions/comments are legitimately connected to Wikipedia, as they are here, it's certainly within our purview to act. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Pointing your Facebook fans at a Wikipedia user and making anti-gay slurs toward that person... you've demonstrated that you aren't interested in being a productive member of our community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban I have a real problem with long term incivility. Should have been dealt with earlier. And if he's aiming fans at Wikipedia or using his reach on social media to cause problems for Wikipedia or its editors, then he is de facto not a member of this community.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  addendum His actions on Wiki are appalling and evident of a battleground, not here attitude. This is in addition to his actions off wiki and would be sufficient if we discount his use of social media to recruit meatpuppets to not only affect a consensus discussion but to harass editors he finds problematic to his his nothere agenda.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban - per p. much everyone else.--Jorm (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban - long term incivility and harassment. --MrClog (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support and pace Iridescent. The main difference here is that the fellow's deliberately relying on us ignoring what goes on in the rest of the web to give the site and our members a digital kicking. That kind of makes us enablers, and even if pour encourager les autres is not policy, it still very much applies philosophically. Or it bloody well should, anyhows. ——SerialNumber54129 18:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't mind him venting about it on Facebook, even if he did get his fanbase all stirred up. We can't hold that against him. But linking to the admin and calling them a "faggot" can be seen as nothing other than a blatant attempt to incite harassment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Can't say I've come across this before, but reviewing the above... yeesh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. (see below) I don't see the harassment. I see misconduct and canvassing, certainly, that may rise to the level of a block or some other sanction. But complaining about a particular Wikipedia editor off-wiki is not harassment. No matter how upsetting it may be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Also support indef block per WP:NLT following this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    •  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Where is this "pha66ot" comment everyone's referring to? Has he edited the Facebook post? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The original comment link is [18]. He may have deleted that particular comment but he left up another one making fun of the admin's user page that was just below it. He seems to have deleted one or two more subthreads on the Facebook post once they were noted to the deletion discussion as evidence, as well. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I can now support community ban for disruption. I note that the FB discussion has now been deleted, which is great (I don't know who deleted it, though I'm reasonably sure someone reported it to Facebook). Anyway I still can't support based on harassment because frankly I don't think it rose to the level of harassment, and was rather off-wiki whining for which I'd prefer to deny recognition. That said, the canvassing and disruptive, offensive commentary on-wiki (including the legal threat) rise to the level of sufficiently disruptive to merit a CBAN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Most likely he got a timeout from Facebook when Facebook deleted it. He has at least three accounts that he uses in alternation on Facebook to avoid bans there already, under the names of "Michael Williamson", "Michael Z Williamson" and "Michael Z. Williamson". The #2 sockpuppet facebook account, which uses a playboy bunny skull-and-crossbones icon, posted this [19] right after leaving a note that "My similarly named friend got a 30 day ban...". Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support, per editors' recent actions at the article-in-question & his recent comments at that article's Afd. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww. [20] I think this has taken the cake. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban, clear indications of WP:NOTHERE including recent comments on the Facebook thread he's posted and recent edits to the AfD. --letcreate123 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban, and I would go so far as to consider putting in place a "zero-tolerance" policy for everyone he's canvassed so that he can't use his supporters to proxy for him in his ban - iff the article doesn't already fall under general/discretionary sanctions of some stripe. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

did you say sneakers?  Dlohcierekim (talk)

It takes a lotta nerve to label someone a pha66otte when you go flouncing about in a getup like this. But then of course his infobox says he's a "bladesmith".

-EEng

• He's already been indef'd under NLT. Comments like this one at the AfD are objectionable / offensive. WP does not need editors who view everyone else here as "vile, fat, basement-dwelling wankers who have appointed themselves the keepers of knowledge." Mzmadmike has made ~1800 edits over more than 10 years and yet knows so little of WP culture that he sees notability questions / an AfD discussion as his "readers [having] to abase, degrade, and humiliate themselves to document that [he, as] a best-selling, award-winning author with over 20 publications and 100 editions in 3 languages is more culturally relevant than a disgusting freak who was fucked to death by a horse" (a reference to this article). He asserts that it is his decision alone whether the article on him stays or not, and he has issued an NLT-violating threat (in comparably objectionable terms) in an attempt to impose his will. He's referred to editors as "fucking pathetic", declared that describing the Nazi Party as of the far-right in "delusional crap" and that the Nazis "were left wing, and claiming otherwise requires mental contortions that indicate insanity". These led to a warning on his user talk page, which was not his first warning about civility (after this comment). He has blogged criticism of WP offsite (which is fine) but also named editors he disagrees with and linked to the on-wiki discussion, which is problematic. I support a community ban as I don't believe that Mzmadmike shares WP's goals and values and doubt that will change. EdChem (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• I was going to block for the edit linked by 73.76.220.8 (EEWWW) but found the NLT block there. I'm going to go revdel some of that, so look quick.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Request closure or this is going to turn into another train wreck as the AFD. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to state the words, "This person is banned", and not just "let's stop talking about this because they're blocked now". Here's why: The former makes a statement about expected behaviors and a precedent; the latter shuffles the problem to the future. Saying now, today, "This behavior gets you community banned" can help short-circuit discussions in the future.--Jorm (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The indef can be lifted by any individual admin, but a community ban can only be overturned by the community. That's what we need here. We keep his article, because he is notable, but we don't keep him in the community.

On a personal note, as a science fiction reader, I'm glad that I've never read anything by this (Redacted), and hope to never do so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Community ban, obviously. EEng 04:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Community ban This person has behaved in an abominable fashion, both off-Wiki and here on Wikipedia. He has chosen his fate as an editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban He's done his dash on WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with users Jorm and Cullen328 above. Rong Qiqi (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• clarification While I am vile and fat, I do not have a basement to dwell in.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  My goodness, I wish I had a basement to dwell in. It'd be like a palace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  We used to dream of having a basement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  We were evicted from our basement; we had to go and live in a lake. Rong Qiqi (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Luxury! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Currently looking for a basement. Willing to share with three Yorkshiremen. Vile/fat optional, but must have own socks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Full disclosure: I am one of the fat vile people who voted for "No award" above his book in the 2015 Hugo vote, and I am not going to get involved in the AfD (because of that and also because it makes me feel vaguely unclean.) However, that doesn't disqualify me from evaluating his behaviour as an editor. He is not here to improve Wikipedia, and his attacks are of course completely inappropriate. And like Dlochierekim I have no basement. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban- I as a card-carrying member of the Fat Vile Basement-dwellers' Association agree that this person is not here to constructively edit the encyclopedia. He's a deeply unpleasant and disruptive person. Reyk _YO! 11:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban - This Fat Vile Homeowner must show solidarity with his basement dwelling kin by confirming that this sort of comportment is inappropriate in the extreme on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Sadly, I have to support this and I'm a pretty avid reader of Williamson and generally support his views. His actions here and on Facebook are not excusable though and especially in the current environment, show willingness to belittle and harass those with differing views. I'm even more disappointed that he apparently deleted the discussion on Facebook without so much as an apology. Take responsibility for your actions, don't try to hide them. I'm also a bit disappointed in some of the comments here that are stooping down to his level. Be better than that. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban An established writer understandably gets a little upset when someone anonymous suddenly declares them not notable. Canvassing, if you can call it that, was done by the writer, not the user. Get over it. I see no legal threat. Almond Plate (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  I will pursue whatever legal remedies are available if this page is not removed. was posted by Williamson, and is unquestionably a legal threat. Canvassing, if you can call it that, was done by the writer, not the user. Wikipedia sees no distinction between a Wikipedia contributor and the person who operates that account. Community bans like these are directed at the person operating the account, namely Williamson himself, and not merely his account. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The diff Mendaliv is referring to can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Z._Williamson&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=907294524&oldid=907286075 (scroll down a bit) Rong Qiqi (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:CAN pertains to editors, and there is no legal remedy available, so how can that be a threat. It's just words. You know, the tools of a writer. Almond Plate (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of if a legal remedy exists, the mere threat of a lawsuit has a chilling effect, as few people can afford to defend themselves in a civil suit. It doesn't matter if the threat has merit, what matters is the threat to drag you into court to waste your time and money, which exists as a technique to get your way. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Words have meaning, and our community matters. "Get over it" is the cry of those who wish to harass with impunity, because "it's just words." Sorry, that's not how it works. We're empowered to determine whether someone's choice use of words makes them a net negative to our community and, if so, whether or not we want to allow them to continue to participate. As usual, xkcd on point: Free Speech. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  We are supposed to look beyond the heat of the moment. A ban over something this small has a chilling effect on everyone. It will all be over when the AfD ends, which will be any moment now, and then I want to allow him to participate again. Almond Plate (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban - His comments here and on Facebook are beyond the pale, It's one thing letting off steam about someone but to link them and then call them <that word> is on another level of stupid, Get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• reply to Almond Plate And he is free to pursue whatever legal means he pleases. We simply block from editing anyone who makes a legal threat. But that is just one example of his nothere behavior. The incivility alone is a sufficient reason to block or ban him. And his words, his writer's words, are the vehicle of his incivility. Should we shrug those off as well. What an excuse, "I'm a writer, so I should not be blocked or banned for what I have written, regardless of how hurtful." We are all writers here, of a sort. I cannot understand your need to defend him.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand why experienced editors waste their time with someone like Almond Plate. AP created their account on September 18, 2018. They have made 184 edits since then. Their first edits to project space are to this dicussion and the AfD, and their comments are ludicrous and will have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think they're assuming good faith of an editor who, so far, has spent 80% of their time in articlespace and so has not proved themselves a net negative. Having said that, I'll bet my shirt—per BEANS—that should anyone dig out that-which-is-not-pixie dust, any issues—apparent or otherwise— would find themselves instantly resolved. Meh. ——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• aside on irony If his writings "violence" motiff is an offshoot of the views of violence in RAH's Starship Troopers, in Johnny's Moral Philosophy class, When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”, then I hope he appreciates the irony of the situation. I'm sure Mr. Heinlein would. Now there is a writer that is notable.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Pile on Support User is clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia and is a net negative to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Net negative to the project. Support ban. (it's been 24 hours, I think this is pretty close to closure time). -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

NAC?

This got closed by a non-admin. I'm not opposed to the closure and think the call is right, but I'm reasonably certain non-admins aren't allowed to conclude someone is banned, though I can't find an explicit statement of policy to that effect. And the fact that this guy is already blocked means an admin doesn't need to do dirty work. Even so, I think an admin should "confirm" the close real quick. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh hold up, Rockstone35, you !voted and then closed. Even if you were an admin that wouldn't be permissible. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-admins are allowed to close community discussions, including bans. I've seen it done before, and I'm fairly certain that I have done it at least once in the past. However, like I said in the summary, if this is too soon or if we want to wait for an admin, I have no problem with it being reversed. !voting and then closing is permissible though, see here. An uninvolved user is someone who has no bias or conflict of interest, not someone who has no opinion about the situation. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: Per WP:CBAN (my emphasis): If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly and enacts any blocks called for. You are both involved (by supporting the ban) and not an administrator, so you have no business closing this discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 - You cannot vote and then close the dicussion, I would suggest Rockstone35 you repoen this and allow an admin to close it - Whilst consensus is blindly obvious IMHO closures like these should be left to admins. –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tavix: while I don't disagree with the "uninvolved" part, the rule does not prohibit uninvolved administrators from closing ban discussions, at least how I read it, it only requires them to notify the subject. I think we should update the policies to make it clearer. I promise I'm not wikilawyering, I just thought that closing this was okay. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that sentence. It's obvious (to me) that all of those things need to happen at the same time by the same person, but I can see how someone might have read it differently before. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tavix: You're welcome! Thank you for removing the now-extraneous sentence. The other reason I was confused is because the non-admin closures page only prohibits closures which require an action by an administrator for technical reasons, which in this case, since the user is already indefinitely blocked, it doesn't. I think the page needs to be completely reworked because it really only talks about deletion discussions. But that's another topic. I edited the page on non-admin closures to clarify, feel free to review and revert if not necessary. Edit: was in wrong section, will reevaluate. All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I reopened the discussion. Users who voted can not be the closers. This is the original close (with the original timestamp):--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  (non-admin closure) It's been 24 hours (the time required for consensus to form), and the community's consensus is overwhelming to support the community ban. Thus, Mzmadmike is banned indefinitely by the community for harassment and incivility. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An issue has arisen Linked to this [[21]]is claiming that a specific user is linked to a Facebook account. Now I am not up enough on the inns and outs of the SPI to know if this user is in fact the same as the one on the facebook account. But if not it may well be a case of outing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the Freehold Facebook site.[22] Doug Weller talk 16:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, if a user does not say they are userxxx on facebook we cannot say they are, even of the face book account userxxx say they are the wiki user. They have to admit to it here, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Does this [23] count? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a link to a Facebook page there, although the links are sufficient to show that the Wikipedia account belongs to the writer -- but did anyone really doubt that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I withheld judgement, after all any one can claim to be H G Wells. But the links confirm it is himSlatersteven (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Odie Galvan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello when this editor Odie Galvan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to change/remove genres from various pages without explanation despite being warned to stop. I initially warned them a few minutes ago before noticing an (apparent) pattern in similar edits. The edits didn't appear to meet the description for vandalism so AIV didn't appear to be the proper venue to bring this up. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 24 hrs for disruptive editing. So many of their edits appear disruptive that I am tempted to treat this as a NOTHERE situation. If it resumes after the block expires, I would endorse an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Endorse block and warning.04:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pasb Entertainment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pasb Entertainment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) The user is already blocked as a vandalism-only account with a username violation (I don't see a username violation, but I assume somebody else does), but they don't seem to be using their talk page access productively (filter log: 1,2,3). Should talk page access be revoked? Edible Melon (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

As they are already blocked indef. and have made edits since I blocked them, I'm not sure what is needed.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That's actually funny as the edit filter stopped it. Let em vent, I say.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, well Y'all. It's been good knowing you. Revoking TPA  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Salasasa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Has been edit warring over at Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us‎ with edits like this one [[24]], but its not just edit warring we have this [[25]] The user has been warned (and ignored them) and its clear this is some kind of a game and they are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

And he is still at it [[26]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

They have now been blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2409:4052:2115:152F::

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2409:4052:2115:152F:0:0:1548:C8A4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP forges postings, making a pretense these requests and comments originate from registered users. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandal (likely sock) WP:NOTHERE IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

190.134.80.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been unambiugously disruptive throughout editing. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. I suspect they're a sock considering the specific nature of their disruption. Can we please get a block please? Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sergecross73, Wanna Know My Name? Later, and List of music considered the worst

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Wanna Know My Name? Later brought up a concern about User:Sergecross73's behavior on the talk page for List of music considered the worst. Per WKMN?L:

I want to clarify that various users that were in favor of including Pepper in this article, since the very beginning, were the same person, under different accounts. This was proven here. Even when they were a troll account, they were trying to make "opposing" votes invalid [27]. Sergecross was against the RFC because a link was put in Reddit that asked users to come and give their opinions on the matter. Sergecross, however, looked into the other direction when it was proven that some users voting in favor of Pepper were Sockpuppets. These users were the ones which agreed with everything Sergecross said, and when he minimized the effort of opposers, the Sockpuppets were in favor[28]. When a user even said that this article doesn't follow WP:LISTN, he was told by one of the Sockpuppets to "DROPTHESTICK" [29]. Do you know who agreed with the Sockpuppet? Sergecross of course [30]. When the users were discovered to be Sockpuppets, Sergecross has now changed his instance into "some users had valid reasons" instead of declaring the RFC invalid by manipulation and suggesting to start a new one [31]. Coming from a Wikipedia admin, this surprises me, and should be looked into. I'm more than willing to suggest to the Noticeboard to check this behavior, especially when he has removed anything positive about Pepper in the list, citing that is not the scope of the article [32] [33], but if you check the edits, there are other albums with positive things in their entries, and those were never removed by him. So, the scope of the article only applies to one album? This was shown to be WP:BIAS against one specific entry. After the discussion heated in this talk page, and someone added in the article that Pepper is considered one of the best albums, he suddenly changed his instance, because, of course, didn't want his bias to show anymore.

1. Is there any weight to these statements, and should any action be taken?

2. My concern here is the back-and-forth between these two editors, namely their perceived hostility toward each other.

Relevant discussions to refer to: [34] [35] ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to clarify something here: I've never been hostile against Sergecross, only have explained that I don't agree with his actions, especially if he's a Wikipedia admin. I've even said to another user to remain civil when he insulted Sergecross [36]. I was going to report Sergecross' behaviour eventually but I have seen that Electricburst went ahead and did. I don't know if anything will come up to this, but I still think it will be better for all of us if another admin of the Noticeboard steps in and says something. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 00:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like to say that I don't favor any outcome in this situation, but I brought it here because I feel that these are some pretty serious things you are accusing Sergecross of. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Every accusation I've made has its respective links to prove it. I'm not making anything up. Other users have the same concern I have, as seen in the talk page. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 00:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Electricburst1996, why did you fail to notify the two users of this report? WKMN found their way here, but you must notify Sergecross23.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• I was not notified, this is a simple content dispute, and I have not acted as an Admin at any point in the discussions. This needs to be closed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This is about more than a content dispute, this is also about your conduct and alleged hypocrisy and flip-flopping. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently you believe that both editors misbehaved. What administrative action are you seeking?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I just want both editors' behavior to be analyzed and for a decision to be made based on that. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait, are you serious? You were just notified, it's on your talk page, although a little later than my notification (that's why I wrote here first). How can you say that you haven't acted as an admin at any point? You're an admin, you're always acting as such. Why should this discussion be closed? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 00:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators do not always act as administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Still, his behaviour should be looked upon, since it's going against WP:BIAS, WP:NPOV and such. Him being an admin has nothing to do, but I was pointing out that I was surprised that an admin is behaving like that. My points are still valid. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 01:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I found this on my watchlist before I was notified. And that’s not what acting as an admin means... Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Unless an administrator uses administrative tools, they aren't acting as an administrator. This is a content dispute, and ANI isn't a venue for venting about "hypocrisy and flip-flopping." Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's all about his behaviour and how he's not letting an article improve. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 01:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So you've personalized a disagreement and brought it here to ANI with accusations of administrator misconduct in the absence of administrator action? Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

First than anything, I didn't bring it here. Electricburst1996 did. He wants for the Noticeboard to check my behavour and Sergecross, and I'm in favour of that. Second, I never said "he acted as an administrator in the discussions", I specifically said that he IS an administrator, and his conduct surprised me. He, more than many users, should know to be unbiased in the article in question, which of course is not (there's a notice in the article that it's tone is not encyclopedic, since 2013). WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 01:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I see that, but you also state that you were planning to anyway. Administrators are allowed to have views on content too, which may not coincide with yours. They don't have a magic insight into neutrality. Your conduct in the talkpage discussions is not exemplary. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning to. I wanted to end, or advance, the discussion in the talk page before coming here (one discussion at the time, please!). All I'm saying is, please check the conducts. If you need to check mine, I'm not against about it. I'm not going to say to close this entry in the noticeboard. To the contrary, go ahead. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 01:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the conduct dispute he keeps on bad-faith accusing me of neutrality issues, is over a dispute that had a large participation RFC (20+ people) that ended in no consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reviewed the talkpage, and see nothing that Sergecross73's done that's problematic, other than to have the temerity to disagree with WKMN and a couple of other editors. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OpenStreetMap advertising?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Noticed today we have maps being added all over that seem to push the use of OpenStreetMap. Not sure the value of these Wiki style maps that still have some copyright attribution attached to them. Do we have some sort of arrangement with this Wiki style map company to link and lead our readets to their external website in the lead of many articles? --Moxy 🍁 16:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It's mw:Extension:Kartographer. I personally think these OpenStreetMap-based maps are so poor-quality they're worse than useless and anyone adding them to Wikipedia should be obliged to give a specific rationale in each instance why these shitty in-house maps are more use to the reader than the alternatives, but since it's an official WMF initiative complaining about it would be pissing into the wind. ‑ Iridescent 16:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Crap is right.....are they working on making theses better? As of now they have very little value leading our readers away from Wikipedia in the lead. I believe they should be removed from the leads of articles untill they have some value (thinking of reverting spam that is taken seconds to add maps all over). These seems more like a Wikivoyage incentive. Was there a talk or just WMF crap....do we really need a road map of Canada on its main page I think not?--Moxy 🍁 16:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

They could also be politely described as "politically dubious"; pick the disputed border of your choice and have a look at how OSM treats it—e.g. the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are a part of Israel without even a dotted "disputed" line, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland and North Cyprus are independent countries… There's a reason "maps that anyone can edit" isn't a good idea. ‑ Iridescent 16:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Possibly one of the contributing factors here is the "WikiMiniAtlas" present in the top-right corner being somewhat sub-optimal in function. This is in comparison to eg. German Wikpiedia that uses a well-integrated OpenStreetMap link at the top, and has done for most of a decade. This reduces many of the situations where there might be a temptation to add extra map widgets. —Sladen (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd would support the removal of every one of these, How does showing a map of an insterstate or borders help our readers ? .... It doesn't imho, If I wanted to look at a border or a country I'd just use Google Maps. –Davey2010^Talk 16:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, but these maps are crowd-sourced. I've seen a map at West Los Angeles that has a fulsome error on it, which I had to counter by pointing out in the caption where the blamed thing came from. Let's move ahead on getting rid of these things. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I added "crowd-sourced" to the lead of OpenStreetMap, and I'll bet it will be taken down within just a few minutes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Going to remove all over while pointing here for comments.--Moxy 🍁 17:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's literally an article about a road. Of course a map is going to be more helpful than not. Same for geographical localities, but yeah, sometimes the borders on OSM aren't accurate. epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

About notification

As nobody else seems to have bothered, I have notified @Kozuch: about this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Thank you but they have been pinged multiple times with a link here.--Moxy 🍁 17:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC) "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." - you have seen that every time you have edited here, and ignored it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Thank you for the leasson but as mentioned to you before the editors thus far has had 30+ notices all linking here.--Moxy 🍁 18:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC) So you think it's OK to notify people by pings when you've been explicitly told several times that it's not acceptable? DuncanHill (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Saw this from user talk:Kozuch. Not sure what part of these edits might ever be compared to "advertising": it's just standard content for articles. Hundreds of thousands of locator maps are in use on the English Wikipedia. Dynamic maps generated with Kartographer are used in millions of Wikipedia articles across languages because they are simply a more efficient way for editors to do the same. Nemo 18:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes they are used on articles about roads..but not sure how a user generated OR map with an external link in the lead about a state or countries roads that in many cases is not even mentioned in the article is all that relevant or sutibles in its OR form.--Moxy 🍁 18:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's your point. Wikipedia articles incorporate charts made by users all the time. Nemo 18:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct we do make them here backed by sources and that can be edited by the community...this is an external link with user generated content NOT Wikipedia's control. See also WP:OI--Moxy 🍁 18:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

These maps are edited by the same community and made in the very same way, see template:maplink for the details. The data is just stored differently, for instance instead of having a SVG file on Commons you may upload a file with some data points. The advantage is that instead of having hundreds of thousands of files, which are hard to maintain for Wikipedia users and easily attacked, you can store the data in a more manageable format. Nemo 18:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Our contributors are thousands of individuals"----Moxy 🍁 23:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So? Are you trying to say it's exactly like the English Wikipedia? Nemo 23:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct just like us - thus not s suitable for inclusion as per WP:USERGENERATED that is one of our 3 core policies for content.--Moxy 🍁 23:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• My goodness, i would have to say i would support any proposal to remove all of these additions; was there any RfC or indeed a simple conversation about this addition? The quality seems so...amateurish, not to say poor, that i cannot see any benefit in adding them, especially where these is already a map in position, such as this, which i have already reverted. If there has not been a discussion, can we start one, please? Before we go any further adding these maps? Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support mass elimination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I am so sad to see my edits reverted. To keep the discussion polite and factual, I can only tell following:

1. Wikimedia Maps is an official project so this is no advertising at all. The link to OSM is a required attribution because of OSM license. These maps are so widely used on Wikimedia projects that I wonder you use so harsh words when the penetration of these maps on Wikimedia Commons or Wikidata is already so huge.
2. So sorry to see the users here attacking OSM by questioning its quality. OSM is the best free map data that exists. This is a fact that needs no further discussion. There simply is nothing that has better quality or is more complete under a free license. You are also attacking the OSM community which is very rude. So sorry to have to read this in 2019...
3. I really can not believe my eyes when I read you suggest to use "alternatives" of OSM, probably because of better quality. I understand this as direct proposal to use proprietary maps like Google Maps etc. because there simply is no other free project beside OSM of greater map quality. Wikipedia is a free knowledge project and you propose to use proprietary product... we should promote other free projects (like OSM is) to help these projects grow... Instead, you seem to propose the promotion of commercial products... This does not make sense at all.
4. As per my point #1 I think there is no real incident to talk about, because again the maps are meant to be used on WMF projects, are hosted and endorsed by WMF etc... --Kozuch (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is a complaint over something very minor, IMHO. These don't do any harm, and in cases like road articles, there is an obvious need for them. Can someone tell me how these are supposed to be bad? This sounds like a bunch of nonsense over nothing. Are we going to have to use Google, Bing, or some other copyrighted mapping service, or just let our readers be confused when there is an actual need for a map and it's not on an article? I guess if you're not regularly improving road articles or other articles about geographical locations, you wouldn't see the need for a map. epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The argument for not adding theses all over is pretty clear above....they are not editable by our community members to allow fixing..... they are user created content by a third party.... the quality is simply not encyclopedic..is an external link in the lead of our articles....is being added all over including articles that do not talk about roads in an manner. I could see this on Wiki-travel but here there is a much high criteria for mass inclusion.--Moxy 🍁 23:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think people want to take an extra step to click the external link in the coordinates template. That's why this map is more convenient. I'm not convinced by the argument that they're "not editable to allow fixing", since you can easily create an account there. I agree with not using the shapes from OSM, but not to remove the maps themselves. It seems like excessive harm almost to the point of vandalism, when the alternative is a static map, a copyrighted map (e.g. going to Google Maps after two clicks) or no map at all. epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So as you mentioned not editable nor can we deliberate any problems here within our community WP:USERGENERATED at its best. Simply not reliable enough for Wikipedia....lets quote the warning they have posted...."we cannot represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of the information in maps".--Moxy 🍁 23:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Still not convinced by that. Almost all online mapping platforms are publicly editable due to the high number of geopolitical, technical, etc. changes that occur every day. Even things such as a street renaming would warrant an edit. I don't know if you're proposing to use outdated maps, or that WMF withdraw the mapping extension, or something else. All of these are unproductive and the WMF will do something like that when pigs fly. What we should be looking for is which one is more heavily moderated, and if these borders are inaccurate, there's even a guide to make your own borders and upload them to Wikimedia Commons. epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This is why we are not a map hosting site... nor should we link to a Wiki based site.--Moxy 🍁 23:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support mass removal – per others, particularly: we shouldn't use user-generated maps (or other content) from third party sites; they're road/transportation maps, being used on articles that don't need road maps (like US state articles); the quality isn't there. But mostly that they fail the policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and as pointed out above, at times WP:NPOV... so the core policy trifecta... if they're user-generated content from a third-party site. – Levivich 23:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support mass removal of maps from state/country pages; oppose for all others – As I have mentioned above, this can be remedied by creating local versions of shapes on Wikimedia Commons or even Wikipedia. The page Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Map data exists for this very purpose and can, indeed, be used in conjunction with WP:V. However, in regards to the current matter, I support removing the shapes from state/country articles as they are unnecessary. epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If they are to stick around....really would need them added to a section about roads over the lead of articles that does not talk about roads at all.....as per WP:LEAD.--Moxy 🍁 23:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Not just roads. There are articles about transit lines, parks, building complexes, and other linear/polygon features that would benefit from these maps. Words and Commons images can only go so far, and most people don't have the time, knowledge, or energy to create SVG diagrams. epicgenius (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what your talking about...the map above does not show " tourist attractions" like parks and buildings (a job for WikiTravel) but just roads with an odd red boundary. --Moxy 🍁 00:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, don't assume something I didn't say. I meant that these maps belong on the articles about parks and buildings. In a lot of cases, you can also customize it so that a coordinate point shows up, instead of a shape, but the boundaries can be useful to show the boundaries of a park or other open space. epicgenius (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ohhhh I see.....my bad. I would agree some articles could use a "Wikipedia bassed map".--Moxy 🍁 01:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The header is bizarre. OpenStreetMap is a noncommercial wiki-based project with free licensing. (It uses the ODbL, requiring attribution to "OpenStreetMap contributors". Not sure why our version omits the second word.) Its integration into Wikimedia maps is very useful, and allows contributors to add interactive maps to articles. I don't understand why there is controversy over the template's use. It can be added to articles that would be improved by it, and not added to those that wouldn't be. --Yair rand (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm requesting more opinions from members of WikiProject U.S. Roads regarding implementation: @DanTD: @Dough4872: @Fredddie: @Imzadi1979: @Mitchazenia: @Rschen7754:. Cards84664 (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've never made a single map on any of the pages using the current ones, but I have requested them. I know a lot of road articles used a different type of map. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delta Jackson

I just blocked Delta Jackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as being, or proxying for, Jonathanbishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bishop has a long history of sockpuppetry, and the blocked account is here primarily to engage in battle about a website with which Bishop is in dispute, note especially [37] referencing Bishop's website, which is blacklisted due to his spamming. If it is not Bishop or a close associate there are still significant WP:NOTHERE issues, including BLP problems. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you want another admin to do something? I don't quite understand what the "incident" here is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My guess is he wants admin eyes on the articles and pages Delta was editing, given the putative sockmaster. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 10:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Just posting out of transparency, as Bishop attacked me personally via his blogs after he was banned so I like to invite independent review for the sake of transparency. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Neodymium29 NOTHERE

Given this edit, their first, I think it's quite clear that this editor is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. I suggest that an admin nip this in the bud and deal out the necessary indef. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

IP vandalism

IP continues to add (here, here, & here for recent examples) unsourced genre's to music related articles despite multiple warnings. Please could an admin take the appropriate action. Robvanvee 07:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a long-term genre warrior. I blocked for a week. It's not going to stop the disruption, though. When more show up, I can do a range block or page protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NinjaRobotPirate. Yup, been reverting this myself for years. When I see it again (and there will be an again, as you say) shall I bring it here or, given your familiarity with the vandal, should I report it straight to you? Robvanvee 09:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You could report this disruption to me if you wanted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Greyerieve

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greyerieve (talk · contribs)

Summary of their first edit is a straight-up nasty personal attack on Favonian. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE, probably a sock as well. – Teratix ₵ 11:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible block evasion by Calvinkulit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Calvinkulit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2406:3003:2004:6A0:835:A534:19AB:FE6C/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Calvinkulit was indefinitely blocked on 20 April 2019. Coming across a range of IPv6 adresses, i think there might be block evasion going on (The dynamic IP started editing on 21 April 2019 (first IP edit [38]).

• A bunch of articles edited have a noticable overlap between Calvinkulit and the dynamic IP range. (examples: Tokyo Rapid Railway, Draft:Yurakucho New Line, Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal, Nagano Shinkansen, Sotetsu Izumino Line, Wako, Saitama)

• On Shimbashi Station, one of the IPs from the range reinstated [39] a translation originally added by Calvinkulit [40].

• Template:Tokyo Subway (TSSN), on which Calvinkulit and the IP are the sole editors (Note that nothing else links to it [41]).

Another similarity of Calvinkulit and the dynamic IP is an interest in redirect pages, lately in merging articles.

Just sayin' that i could be in the wrong here. My thought might be proven false, then i'd owe Calvinkulit and the editors of that IP range an apology for accusing them of doing something they shouldn't.

Any thoughts? Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 00:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPI may possibly be a better venue for this. Also, the affected articles may need to be semi-protected via requests at WP:RFPP with the rationale of IP-hopping block evasion. Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, this could just merit a simple rangeblock of as long as possible. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate to investigate. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Check out the revision history of Commons:File:700kei shiteiseki.jpg. I'll range block for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI Report Denniss: Abusive Behavior

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

• Denniss has been harassing me lately by threatening to get me blocked over tags that was reviewed by me. Intentionally removed tag that was not placed by me. He intentionally undone a non disruptive edits made by me in the Ryzen article. He blindly undone the article. 12
• He also abused the Twinkle feature on me deliberately after not reviewing edits i made on article. 3
• With obvious doubts, He more likely directed a group or individually used each accounts to try get me blocked for WP:Sock -- It led someone else to start case for sock against me. (maybe directed also) 1
• 2a01:cb08:8aed:e00:dc:2709:6068:db9c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a01:cb08:8aed:e00:c0d:5307:1ddd:eda3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:C0D:5307:1DDD:EDA3/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There maybe more. Keep saying i am those ip in a false manner - 1 2

Excessive use of undo`s in many articles. 1

I do not care if Denniss been here for 14+ years. He does not have upper say of anything. This no longer a content dispute. This is a attempt by Denniss to get rid of a individual who actively in good faith to do a general fix on a article with major issues since 2017. Enough is enough from this user. Regice2020 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Driveby tagging is a bad idea. There ought to be an accompanying talk page note explaining the reasoning behind the tag/s. El_C 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The talk page is highly inactive unless something happens to the page like move request or deletion were feedback are collected apparently. Regice2020 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Or the page gets tagged as an advert? Maybe that, too. We don't know because that discussion was not attempted. El_C 03:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup they do not want someone fixing then someone need to tag it based on feedback collection. I mean the product Ryzen 3000 series just released early this month. Many AMD buyers (the AMD fanboys) are just to excited on comments are being directed from a outside source to here. Denniss behavior against me is very unacceptable something need to be reviewed. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup? I'm confused. What are you agreeing with? You added a tag without an accompanying talk page note, which I'm saying was a mistake. El_C 03:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Does removing wrong warnings [supposedly placed by them?] from one's own user talk page really count as "excessive use of undos in many articles"? Edible Melon (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• In June 2019, you added three tags to the article, Regice2020, backdating two of them to May 2017. There was only one tag actually placed on the article in May 2017, and it was not any of those. This is clearly one of the points at issue, given the edit summaries and two talk page sections discussing this, Talk:Ryzen#Too technical? and Talk:Ryzen#Multiple issues, in which you have taken no part. Why did you back-date these tags when you added them to the article, Regice2020? Why have 24 out of the last 28 edits to the article in the past week been you and an IP address edit warring against others over the tags with zero use of the talk page? Given this on this very noticeboard from a month ago, where are your efforts to talk to people? Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This issue revolves around Fancruft. Oh boy Let me get something cleared up. During my United States Timezone July 8, 2019 and announcements in May 2019~June 2019 - New products recently released. (Ryzen 5 3600 (6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 5 3600X(6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 7 3700X(8Cores/16Threads), Ryzen 7 3800X(8Cores/16Threads), and Ryzen 9 3900X(12 Cores/24 Threads). The AMD fans were excited and decided to spread their overwhelmed comments after looking at outstanding benchmarks (performance results of a product) on news articles, social (reddit/facebook) and even directed to Wikipedia Ryzen article to put their fan comments here and got away. As part of the general fixes, i placed few tag in good will to guide other editors to fix after AFD Discussion since a specific group does not want others fixing their page. Ryzen talk page is inactive as i said unless something happens to that page. These are the same general fixes i do on MMA/UFC articles. I mean if you have someone posting a infected website, what will the good faith editors do? They do a general fix by removing it without use of article talk page. Its simple. Got Denniss saying i hide behind the ip its not acceptable. Regice2020 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What general fixes are you talking about? As far as I see, these include PROD, two requests for protection, AfD, a move request, drive-by tagging and [seemingly pointlessly] removing half of the page. Edible Melon (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, it very unusual for Denniss not the one to start the Sock puppetry investigation instead it was started by another user. This is very suspicious. Regice2020 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I can reassure you I'm not a sockpuppet. I noticed the page being mentioned in the edit filter log for two days in a row and decided to look at it. Edible Melon (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Request Sockpuppet investigation to be expedited (Support or Oppose)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Regice2020 Request Sockpuppet investigation to be expedited to ending result because i feel like i need start a ANI against myself for allowing myself to be involved in this AMD Fanboys changing the Ryzen article. Community ban. Regice2020 (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have closed the SPI and semiprotected the article. @Regice2020: we have a no personal attacks rule. The next time you call someone a "fanboy" you will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am sorry @Ivanvector:. "AMD Fanboys" is not a attack. It refers to name of a group of excited AMD users coming into these new articles comments, social media and even directed to AMD Ryzen article to post their fan point of views over benchmarks. .Example of Behavior Regice2020 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Regice2020:, you write I am sorry Ivanvector. "AMD Fanboys" is not a attack then IMMEDIATELY follow with an explanation where you explicitly use it as an attack. Really, really not your best move. -- Calton | Talk 10:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Huh? Calton Its like this. There are a specific group wanted to prevent a article from making fixes and improvement. So they throw a rock at me to make it look i am the bad guy.This ANI Report mostly on why group of individuals or a individual trying get me blocked for SOCK and you get Denniss saying i am those ip in a false manner repeatedly while i am focusing on general improvements on UFC/MMA pages due to a upcoming event. Regice2020 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
        • "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?" Guy, no one is "mak[ing] it look like [you are] the bad guy", you're doing it quite well on your own. Your inability or unwillingness to see this is what will get you blocked and/or topic-banned. --Calton | Talk 03:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Persistent harassment on other editors

Having been warned by admin EdJohnston [42] not to abuse other editors in edit summary, this user Citobun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to harass me in his/her edit summaries:

diff[43]; diff[44]

STSC (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, but those edits do not look terribl WP:NPOV. I asked them to explain what looks like personal attacks here.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This has been going on for over five years. I am getting exhausted with the total lack of admin action to address persistent, long-term political agenda editing that clearly violates the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. My concerns with this user are solely related to his editing behavior and I will adjust my future remarks accordingly. I am not "harassing" this user – I only encounter him when he returns from dormancy whenever there's a contentious Hong Kong issue in the news.

The edits don't look terribly NPOV because brazenly NPOV editors don't last long before being noticed by admin. The reason why this issue been so drawn-out is because STSC's edits are subtle. They subtly reflect the viewpoint of the Chinese government, or quietly downplay things that the Chinese government would rather people not notice. In most cases the edits just make the wording obtuse, disingenuous or are otherwise unconstructive.

Just look at this edit!. It's a patent falsehood! It serves only to prevent news of the pro-Beijing attacks from making the front page of Wikipedia, and exemplifies the kind of subtle, disruptive editing that has gone on for half a decade now. It's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Citobun (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Citobun: No offense, but have you considered this editor is just a regular person with a POV that you disagree with? Comments like this are not okay here. Instead of actually participating in the move request, you decided to bash another participant that you don't like. It hurts your cause and won't lead anywhere good imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Having witnessed a 5-year campaign of censorship and misinformation... no. I have now just run out of patience. Many other users have raised concerns over this user's editing in the past few years and nothing has been done. What is your opinion of this diff? No reliable source characterises the Yuen Long attacks in this way. NONE. Given past editing patterns, all signs point to this being yet another brazenly disingenuous political edit meant to censor this news from reaching Wikipedia's front page. Citobun (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Citobun for 31 hours because of these sustained personal attacks and aspersions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Problematic editor Joshuakodrat

This user continually adds unsourced genre's/content to articles (here, here, here, here & here for example) despite having already received 6 final warnings and a multitude of other warnings for the same reason on their talk page. To date they have made no attempt to discuss the warnings received. While this editor does edit constructively occasionally this disruptive behavior has been happening since April 2017. An admin reminding the editor the importance of verifiablity would be most appreciated! Robvanvee 14:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Their talk page is also full of warnings about uploading non-free content without it being used anywhere, and about how doing so is a violation of WP:NFCC, and a number of those warnings pertain to files they have uploaded several times after having been deleted for NFCC violations in the past. That's besides the several instances of adding unsourced biographical info about living persons, and the original complaint about changing genres without sources. They've had plenty of warnings and so I have blocked the account indefinitely. If they can convince an admin that they understand they're not allowed to do these things, I have no problem with them being unblocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Robvanvee 17:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Need help with the obvious meaning of CITEVAR

• KTM 390 series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FF9600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous 3RR complaint filed by FF9600 in December 2018

Regarding this refactoring of the citation style, removing list-defined references from KTM 390 series, followed by three reverts [45][46][47], it appears that FF9600 doesn't understand what WP:CITEVAR is saying, nor what the ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Preferred styles means. List-defined references are a valid option, and once a consistent style is present in an article, it shouldn't be changed on personal preference, any more than English spelling should be changed, without consensus.

At User talk:FF9600, I tried to explain this, and suggest that if FF9600's changes are valid, it should be easy to get consensus from other editors.[48][49]. It looks like there's some history of unilaterally refactoring backend style variations, and sometimes stonewalling and edit warring, such as at Alfa Romeo 145 and 146 or Audi 80.

All I'm asking for is a clear warning to respect the WP:CITEVAR and similar guidelines to avoid creating disruption by picking unnecessary fights over personal preferences. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

As already stated, WP:CITEVAR talks about change CITATION STYLE (e.g. APA style, Chicago style, etc.), not whether the ref's code is actually inline or tag & filled out in another section of the article. In addition the other linked "disputes", my edits were rectifying WP:COLOR & MOS:FONTSIZE, yet User:Typ932 wanted to OWN the Alfa Romeo articles, at which time I reported it and nothing ever happened.  #FF9600  talk 23:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that encapsulates exactly why I think intervention is necessary. You wrote on the 3RR/N "I know that technically User:Typ932 is not completely in violation of 3RR, but..." You report a 3RR violation while admitting that it is not a 3RR violation. And you demand action? It suggests you see what you want to see and ignore editors who try to reason with you.

Here, you want to wikilawyer the meaning of "citation style", as if CITEVAR is a narrowly written guideline. Even after I pointed you to the ArbCom ruling which said "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style." Does that sound narrow or expansive to you? The phrase "these include (but are not limited to)" suggests it is to be construed broadly. They aren't merely restricting "citation styles", defined narrowly. They mean the whole gamut of valid was of doing such things as formatting, spelling, or behind the scenes code, such as where citations are defined.

And does CITEVAR mention that specifically? Yes. You only have to keep reading:

To be avoided

When an article is already consistent, avoid:

• [...]
• changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.

Changing where the references are defined. Changing to or from Help:List-defined references, the very thing this is all about. I'd like you to consider taking a breath and carefully reading the guidelines others have asked you to read before you carry on another of these edit wars. And, again, post a note on the talk page and see if there is consensus to support it. The whole reason restrictions on personal preference changes like this are necessary is so many editors who insist on reverting without giving time for the discussion and consensus process to happen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@FF9600: you're edit warring to violate a guideline while making personal attacks ("Just continue to be ignorant") in your edit summaries. You're lucky to not be blocked already, so stop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So unless @FF9600: or anyone else objects, in a day or so I'll be restoring KTM 390 series to this version to maintain the established list-defined references format. Feel free to propose a revision at the talk page to see if consensus supports such a change. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Continual misrepresntation by User:Binksternet and accusations of multiple IP addresses.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

I have an issue with User:Binksternet who reverted my edits and alleged that I was vandalising the page, which could not be further from the truth.

Looking at the edit history, it seems he inappropriately reverted one edit here:

[50]

and then when I restored the correct version, which has multiple sources from reputable outlets and publishers, he seemed to revert again and alleging I am perpetrating vandalism:

[51]

From what I can see, Scott Storch himself says in his latest biopic vignette that he "left home" to move to Philadelphia after realising his piano skills.

Further, the multiple sources, which include a reputable Scholar (Maxine Leeds Craig, whose book was published by Oxford University Press), CBS, XXL (magazine), Source (magazine) and also Storch's own linkedin (where he states his education was from Nova Scotia Community College), it is clear Storch was born in Canada.

What is less clear however, was the age he left Canada to pursue his talents.

I cannot explain why Binksternet made the reversion originally, since he baselessly reverted without adding any additional sources to support the claim.

It seems there is a gross overreliance on a single Miami New Times article that claims he is not Canadian. However, that article is questionable at best given the circumstances surrounding Storch at that point of his career.

I am asking ANI to give their own input on this matter. I think it is unfair to say the multiple sources all stating the same thing (Born, and seemingly partially raised, in Canada) are incorrect, in gross deference to one article that is actually *older* than the ones that I've shared.

My sources are all after the date of the Miami New Times article, and I find Binksternet's conduct hard to stomach.

Please give your input.

THank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.141.203 (talk • contribs)

This is not the place for content disputes. Please use dispute resolution, instead. El_C 17:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:El_C, it seems I cannot make a dispute request though. It does not let me, even with a freshly-created account. It takes me to the request page and says "can't see the form?..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Account for DR (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah nuts, it's due to noscript. I'll move this over in a sec here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.141.203 (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that it is very wise for anyone posting edit summaries like this [52] to draw attention to themselves at WP:ANI. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Just passing by to mention that I got pinged by the IP from their edit-summary. I agree with Binksternet and MarnetteD that this needs consensus before it is added to the article. I also think that the IP is very near breaking 3RR at the article. Dr. K. 18:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Right you are, 86.143.229.185. I was just coming here to say the same thing. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term promotional editing by multiple single-purpose accounts in a biography.

See the article Thomas Salme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which concerns an individual who's sole claim to 'fame' is a conviction for illegally flying passenger jets for thirteen years after forging a permit, despite having no legitimate training whatsoever for the profession. And see also the article's history, which indicates that it was created by, and since largely been edited by, a succession of single-purpose accounts, which each seem to be able to supply entirely unsourced personal biographic data for this individual, along with vacuous fluffery about his 'amazing adventures', his life as a 'caring father', and his subsequent career as a photographer. And then see the sources actually cited: short pieces in the Daily Mail, the Sun, and the Daily Telegraph, all concerning his conviction. If this individual merits an article at all (which I'd have thought was at least open to question), it is because of his criminal behaviour and subsequent conviction, and accordingly the article should not be used as a means for what I think any reasonable person would assume was either self-promotion, or at best promotion of by someone closely associated with Salme. I recently cut the article back to what I considered reasonable coverage of the individual's claim to notoriety, but first an IP 79.12.244.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and then a registered user Mistermancini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who's sole editing history concerns the Salme article have reverted me, restoring the unencycloaedic promotional prose, accompanied by edit summaries which attempt (without citing any sources) to minimise Salme's criminality. Since I see no reason why Wikipedia should be used for such overt promotion of this individual, I ask that other contributors add the article to their watchlists, and that at absolute minimum User:Mistermancini be informed that such editing practices will not be allowed to continue, if it isn't deemed appropriate to block Mistermancini entirely. I have notified Mistermancini of this, as the latest single-purpose account involved, and for reasons I think should be obvious, I see no reason to notify the 'other' accounts that have relentlessly added much the same breathless prose to the article. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Further to this, I see that has now stated that "I have met Mr.Salme and is following his activities I know the facts more then you ar", [53] which appears to me to be a clear statement regarding a conflict of interest. Mistermancini should not be editing the article at all. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I've AfDed the article. Beware of the SPAs converging on the AfD however. Softlavender (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, thanks. To add to the list of Mistermancini's apparent disregard for Wikipedia policy, I note that he is now accusing me of 'stalking' (difficult I'd have thought, when Mistermancini has only edited the one article), of adding 'wrong facts' (which I hadn't since all I'd done was removed unsubstantiated fluff, and hadn't added anything of any consequence, and of 'personal anger', which seems to be a classic example of projection more than anything. [54] 86.143.229.185 (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

And on it goes: Mistermancini is now edit-warring with multiple contributors in an apparent attempt to whitewash the article. A section entitled 'Conviction' has now been renamed as 'Light fine'! [55] 86.143.229.185 (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. I indefinitely blocked him. This is not someone here to contribute to a neutral encyclopedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries need revision deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please look at the contributions of Ludowypoeta (talk · contribs) and revdelete what needs to be revdeleted? Thanks, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by CaradhrasAiguo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

These edits [56] [57] at WP:ITNC constitute a naked personal attack and violation of WP:FORUM. After multiple responses, including a warning from me advising them to remove, strike or otherwise modify their comment, they modified it here. As I am WP:INVOLVED I cannot act in an administrative capacity. However, IMO their behavior is deliberately disruptive and I think someone needs to have a formal word with them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

See also their just posted reply to my warning on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And I complied with your warning after receipt of your "message", as you admitted. Moreover, I honestly did not see the ITNC remarks by WaltCip et al until your post on my user talk. So what do you want out of this? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think your modified oppose is still over the top and inappropriate. You accuse another editor of bad faith IDONTLIKEIT voting while in the same breath referring to the music with the words "crap" and "degenerate." Really? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the overt criticism of the U.S., that was my intent of the modification. And as to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I think they were using a bad argument and misguided, that is all; nowhere did I imply that they were specifically was habitually resorting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT "argumentation". And if you still had objections to the modification (made at 17:14 UTC), you had more than enough time to notify me directly on my talk page or WP:ITNC instead of: A) waiting THIRTEEN FULL MINUTES to open this thread. B) resort to a venue you yourself purport to dislike. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

As you banned me from your talk page, further discussion there did not seem practicable. And I also note that your reply there seems to imply some kind of prejudice on the part of myself and the other two editors on the basis our nationality. There appears to be a recurring theme here. In any event I am prepared to let others review both of our editing history and draw their own conclusions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Can you explain what you meant by "The fact that three U.S. residents decided to react in the manner they did speaks volumes above anything I could ever verbally conjure." My geographical location is not relevant to my editing - I also opposed posting the Old Town Road story. You appear to have strong anti-Amercian bias.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I noted WP:ITN/C as another venue to express your dissatisfaction with the modification. Yet you, for some reason, chose not to. Enough said.

I made yet another modification, and will sign off to tend to actually significant matters for the next 36 hours at least. Am done with literal language policing of terms that apply to a poetry form (rap) and not an entire nation. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Such behavior from CaradhrasAiguo is utterly unacceptable on ITN or anywhere on Wikipedia; it's offensive, dickish, and frankly bigoted. I hope that we don't see anything like this again, nor the combative nature that came with being called out on it.--WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm from New Zealand, not the USA.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for 31 hours for their reprehensible behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with the block, especially given CaradhrasAiguo's failure to grasp just how inappropriate their behavior was. IMO any experienced and uninvolved editor can close this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

IP editor 2601:581:4502:96ee:d086:abea:bcd3:284a has posted what appears to be a legal threat at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne/Archive, of all places. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the range for a few weeks. of course since they used IPv6, not sure if they'll actually get the detailed block notice, but w/e. The SPI investigation is about a user who has attempted for years to spam content related to the client the IP claims to represent, though I have no idea what content there is that they allege is defamatory, as the only accusation made against their client by name is that he is not a notable music artist. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, after he used T-Mobile device to make the same legal threat here to ANI, from looking at deleted contribs on that same v6 range, this is Prince-au-Léogâne himself, trolling. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The article they referenced in their legal threat was thrice-deleted in 2011, and they offered no links to this supposed "defamatory content", if it exists (or if it ever existed at all). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and talk page guideline violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Azra Arda Gusema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I went to WP:DRN but was advised to move here. Azra Arda Gusema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly editing/reverting on multiple articles related to the Ace Combat video game franchise. This user is trying to add games to the franchise that are not officially considered to be part of the franchise. This has covered multiple articles, including:

• Ace Combat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ace Combat Infinity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Air Combat (arcade game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Ace Combat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Ace Combat series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I attempted to start a conversation with the user on their talk page, since this covers multiple articles and I could not determine which article's talk page would be best suited for this. After my comment on the user's talk page, they continued to revert my reversions. I posted to WP:DRN and informed the user about it, after which they still opted to ignore me and began changing my talk page sections, even after I warned them that doing this would violate WP:TPO.

This user is totally unresponsive to my attempts to reach out and settle our content dispute. If someone could help with this situation I'd greatly appreciate it. ~SlyCooperFan1 19:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

:This is all you need to know. The user has failed to find their talk page. A block that includes a link to their talk page(just in case they cannot see talk page messages) is the only reasonable way forward.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind they have talk page contents for their own talk page. However...this editing of user comments the following warning...

and the swift disregard of these warningshere look like a refusal to listen to sensible requests. I'll give them a bit more info.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't explain this. ~SlyCooperFan1 20:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes I noticed I omitted user talk; my fault. I have left them a new message that will hopefully help them understand what they have to do.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Refuses to talk, still no edits to article talk pages, continues editing - block?Lurking shadow (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The user has now been warned on their talk page by an administrator against any further addition of unsourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The IP is not here

92.234.228.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Random edits from November 2018 which are all vandalism. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

One should bear in mind that IPs often change hands. So it has been used twice - once to edit about football eight months ago, and once today to edit about religion. I don't think we can conclude a long term pattern. However, I've blocked it for today for trying to be offensive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Question: since it's probably a dynamic IP, shouldn't there be a template posted on their talk page so they know what's up? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's only a 24-hour block and the edits were vandalism. As the IP hadn't been used for nearly 9 months prior to today's spate of vandalism, I can understand why the blocking admin chose not to create the talk page with a block template. It just provides the vandal with more stuff to vandalize and eats more admin time. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood, was just curious! -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Problematic IP

IP keeps repeating a controversial edit and refuses to engage in the discussion. Rather than that, he/she keeps reverting again and again and ignoring warnings. There are a total od 9 edits, and not a single constructive one. Sideshow Bob 08:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sideshow Bob, given that this history clearly shows you edit-warring and breaching WP:3RR and Talk:Greens (Montenegro) hasn't been edited since 2018 are you sure you want to be drawing attention here? ‑ Iridescent 08:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I've warned the IP and left a message for Bob, but he is lucky no-one blocks him for edit-warring. He should know better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:WhiteStarG7

• WhiteStarG7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Falsifies information about the governor of Attica
2. Adds Francisco Franco to the list of presidents of the Republic (the caudillo Franco never presided over any republic)
3. Replaces Azaña’s portrait with one of the Caudillo and adds the Nationalists’ symbolic to the same article

It is also very probably that the user edits from IPs. I doubt that s/he is here for anything good. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Also engaged in useless edits switching the positions of United States and United Kingdom on the Western Front (World War II) article, which is completely unnecessary. Also listing people who weren't founders of nations as founders of nations (4th_of_August_Regime is not a nation) -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

During the last 18 hours the account made edits to three articles. In all three the edits were reverted (in two cases with an explanation). Admins? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Problematic edits from 2.122.0.0/15 range

What seems to be a single IP editor is making continual race/ethnicity based edits, which seem to have a common agenda that seems to me to be unhelpful See User talk:2.122.14.215 for more on IP ranges. Is this editing pattern familiar to any other editors here? -- The Anome (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC))

• I looked at a bunch of edits from three of the listed IPs--I see unverified edits, but I don't see a consistent pattern of disruptive edits, yet. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jayjg that this sort of thing is definitely problematic [58]. If there are more in the same vein, IMO some sort of block would be justified even if their edits are interspersed with okay edits. In answer to the original question, I recall Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#126.209.22.197 problematic editing but I don't believe they had a UK focus and IIRC most of their edits were clearly problematic. And also completely different ISP and geolocation. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• The underlying pattern here is a belief that various "white" ethnicities (German, English, Scottish, Irish) are the only legitimate inhabitants of countries like England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands etc. and that any other ethnicities (particularly Jews) living in those countries are not legitimate citizens, but rather "guests", "alien" or "minorities" living in their "host" countries. Thus David Cesarani cannot be an English historian because he's a Jew[59][60] Jews and Roma can't be national minorities in Norway because only "white" groups like Kvens and Finns are.[61] There is no such thing as a "Dutch Jew" because a Jew can't really be Dutch; rather, they are "Jews in the Netherlands". In fact, Jews aren't legitimate citizens of European countries, but rather live in "host" countries (the latter is a common antisemitic claim and tell). And, of course, Jews can't be white. Jews are "alien" to England, while whites are "native" to Britain.[62][63][That's why they also consistently change "English" to "British" in articles (sometimes legitimately) - because, to them, "English" can only be an ethnicity. The rest of their edits, for the most part, assign people to various "white" ethnicities (e.g. Ulster Scots, Irish descentIrish descent) based, I assume, on their last names. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The header of this complaint refers to the 2.122.0.0/15 range, but that is very broad. A lot of people from the /15 range are not this guy. The only ones from 2.122.0.0/16 which clearly are him are Special:Contributions/2.122.14.27 and Special:Contributions/2.122.14.215. There is also Special:Contributions/2.123.76.175 but it's from a different /16. It is not obvious there is any good rangeblock to use. The cited thread at User talk:2.122.14.215 mentions a bunch of 2.123.*.* addresses but those edits aren't quite clear. A lot of people are prepared to revert between British and English. It's one of our most popular revert wars. The best way to deal with this editor could be some well-placed semiprotections. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The ones that are clearly him are Special:Contributions/2.122.12.145, Special:Contributions/2.122.13.87, Special:Contributions/2.122.14.27, Special:Contributions/2.122.14.215, Special:Contributions/2.122.15.203, Special:Contributions/2.123.75.123, Special:Contributions/2.123.76.175, Special:Contributions/2.123.83.24, Special:Contributions/2.123.108.184. They go back over two years, and they're not too hard to pick out. As you can also see, they cover a large number articles, so I'm doubtful semi-protection will help much. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

asia countries page

AuH2ORepublican and several editors are in dispute over whether palestine should or should not be grouped with generally recognized states or non un, non recognized states. Lo meiin (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin You must notify any other users you report to this page. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

331 dot I already did that Lo meiin (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Boomerang. It seem fishy that, Lo meiin, you did not edited those page nor their talk pages, and then as a new user, knew the way to ANI. Your first edit (that on not deleted page), was sending ANI-notice to AuH2ORepublican. Matthew hk (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to get a check-user sweep of Lo meiin against [nil Arabistan's was probably slightly more battleground based. Lo meiin - could you provide some diffs for AuH20's unilateral recategorisations on other pages. Depending on circumstances it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so, per bold, revert, discuss. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)] (the other primary party in the dispute), given that Lo meiin's handful of edits all focuses (from the start) on AuH20. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that Arabistan has been suspended or anything (I certainly haven't reported to third parties his abusive behavior against me or his POV edits), so I assume that he created this sock account in order to make it appear that there is a larger group of editors protesting against the compromise reached by consensus around a year ago on how Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara are categorized in Wikipedia articles listing sovereign states. I further suspect that the use of this IP starting on July 15 is another sock account of his: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.42.250.60 AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I left a similar comment in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arabistan already. Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Arabistan has made similar edits, but unlike him, I have not engaged in inflammatory jibes against any user. And also unlike him, I am committed to working with Au20 and all other editors to reach a compromise on this perennial dispute. And yes, I have made similar edits because it was just a way to bring attention to this dire issue. I regret all the inflammatory rhetoric and actions of all sockpuppets directed toward Au20 and all other editors (and also the despicable remarks Arabistan made towards pro-Israel Pacific Island nations) affected and I vow not to engage or associate with any of their activities (and tbh my name Lo meiin is indicative that I do not have a personal bias for either the Arab/Islamic states or Israel in this conflict, thank you.) My position stands as that both the states of Israel and Palestine should not receive differential treatment from all other generally recognized states on wikipedia, a major source of reference for many worldwide, and that is the consensus of wikipedia in general ( see list of sovereign states). I would also like to mention that Au20 has changed several articles to categorize palestine as not generally recognized unilaterally where it was already mentioned as generally recognized, such as countries by capitals in their native language and countries by land area, so he's in no position of accusing me of being an NPOV. Thank you Lo meiin (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Lo meiin (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• So the SPI case has closed as unrelated - I apologise to @Lo meiin:. Nosebagbear (talk)
• Returning to the original issue, I feel that both AuH20 and Arabistan were acting uncourteously in the primary dispute. Arabistan's was probably slightly more battleground based. Lo meiin - could you provide some diffs for AuH20's unilateral recategorisations on other pages mentioned. Depending on circumstances it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so, per bold, revert, discuss. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear, I dispute your characterization of my communications with Arabistan as "uncourteous"; I certainly did my best to hold my temper while dealing with insults from the latest inexperienced editor who jumped right into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from Day One. (As an aside, I guess that the restrictions on new editors being involved in edits that concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict no longer are enforced.) I would posit that it is not uncourteous to point out that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state, and I have written nothing negative of the Palestinian people; the same cannot be said for most single-issue editors who exclusively edit articles to group Palestine among generally recognized sovereign states, as their vitriol towards Israelis (and, often, Anericans) shows up within a week or two of signing up as editors. I trust that @User:Lo meiin will live up to his word and doesn't follow in the footsteps of so many prior editors whose sole apparent interest (and writing style) were similar to his.

Regarding the merits of my dispute with Arabistan to which Lo meiin has devoted every single one of his edits and actions, it simply is not the case that the State of Palestine "must be grouped" with generally recognized sovereign states just because it is a UN observer state. The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City. Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo, is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.

The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then it should be grouped with states with general international recognition.

In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as Abkhazia or Northern Cyprus. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Somaliland or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states.

I welcome comments from all interested editors and trust that we can reach a consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @AuH2ORepublican: As a critical note, the correctness of the argument is a content dispute, which this isn't the venue for (you can be right or wrong, and still be uncivil). As a fairly important point, someone (presumably accidentally, it doesn't look willful) has managed to merge my two comments up above, so they now read...oddly. To clarify I felt that Arabistan was being more discourteous and WP:BATTLEGROUND than yourself. Re-reading, I'm unsure about the sarcasm of several points, so that should probably be re-clarified as significantly more discourteous. Nosebagbear (talk)
• Importantly, though, neither editor has become egregiously, "think of the children", rude. The conversation is not currently active. I feel this would be better settled as "Deploy dispute resolution, such as Third Opinion, and everyone remember to walk softly when discussing dynamite". Nosebagbear (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Au20 from my observations, you have made uncourteous remarks towards Arabistan by labelling him a PLO propagandists and have depicted Palestinians are a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people, and I have seen no attacks against Americans by pro Palestine advocates. Furthermore, coming from a country with issues of its own with the US - China - I kind of see where some Palestinian advocates are coming from and they certainly don’t hate Americans, but the American government. I also know how it feels how, similarly to Palestine, the western world for some time left the PRC in the cold, despite the majority of the other countries recognizing us. Furthermore, Au20 has made many arbitrary edits without consulting other editors concerning categorization of states and is blind towards the fact that most countries that are against Palestine are western world countries that take Israel’s side. The consensus is actually that UN members and observers are considered distinct from the 9 states with partial/no recognition and Cook Islands and Niue. Despite this, and despite nose bag bear confirming this established position, and that the rest of the country pages on Wikipedia stipulating so, Au20 decides to stubbornly revert the corrections made. Btw, the un does call Palestine the state of Palestine, and the rest of the states have 102 and less recognition, while Palestine has ~140/193

Lo meiin (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Au20 from my observations, you have made uncourteous remarks towards Arabistan by labelling him a PLO propagandists and have depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people, and I have seen no attacks against Americans by pro Palestine advocates."

@Lo meiin, these are defamatory accusations against me, with absolutely no bearing on the truth. Take back what you said, or else provide evidence to back up your cowardly accusation.

I have written thousands of words regarding the limited recognition of the State of Palestine's sovereignty, and the only time that I have mentioned the PLO was when I told Arabistan "you go as far as to express glee in thinking that Pacific Island nations that support the State of Israel "will be washed up in rising tides." That last phrase sounds almost poetic [enough] for the PLO to hire you to write propaganda for the group (remember its old boast that it would "push the Jews to the sea"?)." I have never accused someone of being a "PLO propagandist" for arguing in favor of deeming the State of Palestine to be a generally recognized sovereign state; I have pointed out to an editor who expressed happiness at the thought of thousands of Pacific Islanders being drowned that his language was reminiscent of the PLO's "old boast" of which you've surely heard. A few days ago you wrote about how horrible Arabistan's words had been, and particularly noted his attack upon Pacific Islanders whose governments supported the State of Israel; now you claim that my reaction to that same disgusting statement is evidence that I "depict[] Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people"? Talk about "uncourteous."

As for your claim that you "have seen no attacks against Americans by pro Palestine advocates," you certainly haven't seen the insults levied against me (an American) and other editors (many of them Americans) through the years--well, except the ones by Arabistan and by yourself. You did see Arabistan refer to the U.S. as "Israel's lackeys," which is an insult to all Americans; if you don't know what "lackey" means, you should look it up so that you know why it is an insult.

By the way, the worst offender in hurling insults against editors who acknowledge that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state was not Arabistan or Talastan, but User talk:Kawhilaugh42. He, too, was a single-issue editor (take a guess on the subject matter) who started off being fairly polite, but eventually started making baseless accusations and lobbing profanities in Tal pages and in his descriptions of edits. After he was blocked indefinitely for persistent vandalism, he created a sock account with the name "Do laima." Do laima claimed to be Burmese, and wholly agnostic on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet from his first day on Wikipedia he commented and edited exclusively on pages concerning the international recognition of the State of Palestine. A few days later, Do laima was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Kawhilaugh42 (see User talk:Do laima). Are you familiar with Kawhilaugh42 and Do laima? Their orthography and grammar remind me a bit of yours. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Au20,

I fully understand that you’re fed up to the brim from dealing with these inexperienced editors (and I don’t blame you) and I am just as appalled and frustrated with their behavior as are you. However, there is no need to lose our cool here; I am not accusing you of anything, I am just pointing out the faults of all sides here; just as I fully condemn arabistans vitriols such as calling you a “smarta**” and calling allies of Israel it’s lackeys and expressing indifference to the threat climate change poses to many pacific island nations, I am just simply pointing out for the sake of professionalism that we cannot assume a country of 4 million people ( plus millions more in the diaspora ) all bear animosity for Israelis, Jews, Americans, and others (which is what I interpreted your statement about arabistan sounding so poetic should join the PLO implied), and I regret if you thought I said otherwise. Likewise, we cannot assume that Israel a country of 8 million + the diaspora are bloodsthirsty contempt and cold blooded murderers and that none wants better future for both peoples ( which is what many Arabs like to assert ). And yes, from my research I am fully aware that the PLO has engaged in inflammatory rhetoric against Jews and Israelis, but yet again that cannot be said about all Palestinians. Furthermore, part of my sympathy with Palestinians and Israelis stems from the fact that my country, mainland China, was effectively shunned by much of the world throughout much of the Cold War and was too denied recognition by some western states and their allies and others. It is not fair or correct to assume that I am a Sockpuppet of theirs as I have edited non related articles such as one on ASAP rocky and I have repeatedly distanced myself from their behavior and am trying to start a dispute to put an end to this dispute. More importantly, I suggest that a compromise can be that Palestine will be listed as an observer state in its own category unambiguously and the rest of the un members remain grouped together. Notwithstanding my chinese heritage, and for the purposes of NPOV, I suggest that Taiwan province will be placed separately from Palestine, the un members, and de facto states in the same category. And btw, just FYI, you talk about maintaining consensus while you are going against the consensus that un members and observers are grouped together accordingly and separate from 9 other states, according to asia, list of sovereign states, list of countries and territories by continent, gallery of sovereign states flags in Asia, and flags, coat of arms, and governments of Asia pages. This is, in my opinion, the best compromise

Lo meiin (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@User:Lo meiin, you accuse me of having "depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people," and then you have the gall to claim that you are not accusing me of anything? I don't know about you, but I think that depicting an entire people/nation as "a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people" would be pretty bad, and had I done so I would deserve to be ostracized by society at large and the editing community in particular. But I have never referred to the Palestinian people that way, and for you to assert that I have is, indeed, an attack upon my person, and I will defend myself lest others get the impression that I am guilty of the disgusting behavior that you falsely attributed to me. Once again, I ask for you to withdraw the accusation of ethnic intolerance that you lobbed against me. While I appreciate your change in tone, you need to clear the record in writing.

As for your "solution," I agree with you that the State of Palestine should be in a separate category from Japan and Sri Lanka, but the reason why Palestine shouldn't be listed with Japan and Sri Lanka (and Qatar and East Timor) is not because it isn't a UN member state, but because its level of international recognition, while substantial, is not generalized. It is possible for a state to be a generally recognized sovereign state without being a UN member state--after all, Switzerland wasn't one until a few years ago, and Vatican City never has been one, yet they both have long enjoyed general international recognition of their sovereignty--although rejection of UN membership certainly is a sign that the state does not enjoy general international recognition. If and when the State of Palestine is recognized by large majorities of not only small economies but also of large economies, and of large majorities of countries in every continent, then it would be generally recognized (and should be characterized as such in encyclopedias) even if it chooses not to join the UN as a member. And had Palestine not sought recognition as a UN observer state when its application for membership was going to be rejected, it wouldn't change the fact that it enjoys substantial international recognition of its sovereignty. So I don't think that "UN observer" should be the category under which Palestine is listed.

In the past, the consensus that emerged was to group Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara as de facto states with substantial, but not generalized, international recognition, which avoided grouping such states with de facto states with little or no international recognition (such as Abkazia, Northern Cyprus, etc.). That is still my preference, and believe that if we carved out Taiwan and Western Sahara (the two whose recognition is less substantial than that of Kosovo or Palestine, although, as you surely know, Taiwan's international recognition is complicated by the fact that so many countries have non-diplomatic relations with it in order not to anger the PRC) and grouped them with states with little or no recognition that it would violate NPOV. I guess that yet another category could be created for those two states, but I don't think that there would be much appetite for that.

As always, I would like to hear what other interested editors have to say. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel like I'm being gang-stalked and bullied and want to avoid these users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel like there are 2 users who are constantly following me, responding to me when I told them to quit stalking me, edit warring and making up nonsensical reasons for their reversions, and calling my edits subpar and then blocking me but still leaving messages to me. I want them to stop monitoring my edits.

I admit I edit warred in retaliation because the two have been edit-warring with me for the entire week.

I want to make amends and try to mollify the situation, but they continue to harass me by threatening to stalk my every edit and delete my edits if they deem its inappropriate, like they are the judges on what they consider to be acceptable. Nashhinton (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

They keep commenting on my Talk page and accusing me of not refactoring properly.

I will not Dox someone because I believe they deserve privacy also, but I also wondering if there is anyway I can block them? Nashhinton (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. El_C 07:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nashhinton - Who are these two users exactly? Can you list them here? Can you also list the locations where these two users are "edit warring and making up nonsensical reasons for their reversions" and provide diffs demonstrating their behavior? What prompts you to believe that they're actively following you and harassing you? The more information you can provide will help us to look into the matter and take appropriate action (if applicable). Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, what El C said above. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't name them because the guy who is harassing says if I leave a message on his talk page or ping him or mention him by name, he will ban me. Nashhinton (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nashhinton, once again, please stop constantly refactoring. Oshwah, please see here. El_C 07:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

El C is one of them. He keeps saying I'm constantly refactoring, which I'm not. He is refactoring by constantly indenting. Nashhinton (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I suspect there are some WP:CIR issues here. This editor added "Adolf Hitler was an artist" to the lead of Adolf Hitler today, for example. El_C 07:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that I told you to quit messaging and following me. Reverting edits is okay. But don't expect me not to question those edits without receiving a proper justification.

You can not go around reverting edits without giving a reason, like saying "nope" and then blocking the user which prevents them from achieving consensus. Nashhinton (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 4 Nashhinton - There's a big difference between an editor engaging in hounding and harassment of another editor, and an editor who is legitimately looking into the contributions of another user and then attempting to talk to them about their concerns. One is performed for reasons that are legitimate and with the intent on improving the project and attempting to help the other user; the other is not, and is done with disruptive editing or battleground mentality in mind, and with the sole purpose of causing fear, frustration, anger, or any level of hardship upon the other editor. El C and Beyond My Ken were not engaging in malicious and intentional attempts at harassment or hounding. They were looking into your contributions following the discovery of edits that gave them legitimate concerns, making edits and taking actions necessary to resolve these issues, and were trying to bring these matters to your attention and talk to you. You haven't shown any kind of evidence demonstrating that their intentions were otherwise; no diffs showing blatantly uncivil messages or personal attacks, edits or reverts by them to edits that were unnecessary or unambiguously done in order to be disruptive, nothing... Why are you assuming such bad faith on their part? Why won't you let them help you? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No one has been blocked. El_C 07:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Your friend blocked me. He sent me a message saying he blocked me when he refused to answer my question regarding his recent edit on the four horsemen. And Hitler was an aspiring artist, which is a fact. Nashhinton (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please make an effort at indenting. What friend of mine blocked you? Anyway, comments immediately preceding this, such as these, are problematic, I'm sorry to say. El_C 07:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I just double-checked: you have never been blocked. El_C 07:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The "friend" is Beyond My Ken who posted at User talk:Nashhinton#Hello with a request to discontinue posting at BMK's talk. That is not a block. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And my notification to Nashhinton said very specifically that they should not post on my talk page "unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) Hi Nashington. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Indentation. While not properly indenting your talk page posts is not a super serious violation of policies and guidelines (i.e. something which typically leads to an immediate block), it can make a discussion thread really hard to follow if you don't and is considered bad talk page practice. If lack of indentation or bad indentation becomes a real problem, it can even be "fixed" by another editor per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors, particularly if the fixing is done by the editor whose user talk page you're posting on.

As for the tracking of edits, etc., please take a look at Wikipedia:Harassment#What harassment is not. The tracking of another editor's edits is not necessarily harassment if there's pretty good reason to do so. If you've made some edits which have been recently reverted as not being in accordance with relevant policies or guidelines, then it's not uncommon for other edits to check to see whether you've made other similar edits or to watch your contributions for awhile to make sure you don't make any more such edits. The best way to stop this from happening is to make sure your edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines; if you start showing other editors that you're no longer making the same mistakes, they will likely stop watching your contributions.

You need to notify other editors if you're going to discuss their behavior here. Even if another editor has asked you (even in not such a polite way) to not post on their user talk page anymore, you are still required to notify them of this discussion. They can "ban" you from their user talk page so to speak, but they can't get you banned or blocked from Wikipedia for posting a simple notification like Template:ANI-notice on their use talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This thread is good example of how bad indentation or no indentation can create problems; perhaps someone can clean it up and maybe that well help Nashington see the difference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This: "You need to notify other editors if you're going to discuss their behavior here."

Contradicts This: "The "friend" is Beyond My Ken who posted at User talk:Nashhinton#Hello with a request to discontinue posting at BMK's talk." Nashhinton (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

El C just sent me this facetious message, and won't leave me alone. "I have warned you 2 to quit commenting on my page and stalking me. Leave me alone." Thanks Nashhinton (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC) — Oh? I received no such warning. El_C 07:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Nashhinton (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I want him banned from my talk page for harassing me. Nashhinton (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

That was on my talk page! And you cannot ban an admin who is looking into your edits, I'm sorry. El_C 08:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't want you banned. I want you to stop commenting on my talk page. Nashhinton (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And how can I mention a person who's stalking me if that person blocked me from their talk page? This site operates like a DMV. Nashhinton (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you compare Wikipedia to the DMV... but you can still file a report at ANI about a person whose behaving inappropriately, even if they formally tell you not to communicate with them on their user talk page or ping them. You just don't edit their user talk page (aside from the edit that must be made in order to notify them of the ANI discussion), and you just don't ping them. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nashhinton - Adding to the reply that I made to you here, you state on this page that El C and Beyond My Ken were hounding you and engaging in battleground conduct, yet it was you who was actually doing this (you even added an edit summary of "nope" to one of your retaliatory reverts against Beyond My Ken because he had used the same edit summary when reverting your edit to Adolf Hitler earlier). This not acceptable behavior, is not what they were doing to you, and it needs to stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nashhinton, can you not even try to indent? Anyway, sorry, you cannot ban an admin from your talk page when they are looking into your edits. El_C 08:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is it so necessary to indent when this isn't an article? Nashhinton (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I told you. They were hounding me first and I hounded in retaliation. They've been hounding me for almost 2 weeks, not breaks. It's like they don't sleep. Nashhinton (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it shows other readers of the discussion that you're making a reply or response, and to which comment you're making the response to. Not making any indentations at all in discussions with other editors will add confusion to it, and make it much harder for others to read and follow... Also, I need evidence supporting your accusations - that they've been hounding you for weeks. So far, I don't have any at all from you, and I don't believe at all that this is what they were doing... Regardless, because someone is engaging in inappropriate or uncivil behavior towards you does not give you the right or the excuse to do it in return or "in retaliation" as you put it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

They've been hounding me for almost 2 weeks — to the best of my recollection, I've never encountered this user before today and have no idea what they are talking about. El_C 08:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit to Adolf Hitler which brought Nashhinton to my attention took place at 14:09, 1 August 2019‎. I had never heard of, run into, or interacted with Nashhinton before that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• OK, here's the deal. Nashhinton made a very poor edit to Adolf Hitler in which he added to the lede sentence that Hitler was an artist. Hitler, of course, was indeed a failed artist, but that's not why he's got an article on Wikipedia. Seeing this edit, and recognizing what seemed to be very poor judgment on Nashhinton's part, I reverted it. I then took a look at some of Nashhinton's other edits, on the theory that poor judgement can be expressed in numerous ways, and, indeed I found the addition of unsourced material, changes which did not improve the article, and similar sub-par edits. These I edited or reverted as necessary, which set Nashhinton off with the claim that I -- and later El_C -- were stalking his edits.

The talk page discussions concerning this can be found:

• here on User talk: Nashhinton
• here, on my talk page; and
• here, i=on El_c's talk page.

As can be seen in these discussions, it was carefully explained to Nashhinton that neither myself nor El_C were "stalking" his edits, we were merely examining them to see if they met the standards required of Wikipedia, i.e. that they were accurate, well written, and well sourced. Nashhinton has, apparently, judging by this report, refused to accept this, and believes that he is being "stalked".

The bitter truth is that if Nashhinton had not had the exceedingly poor judgement to think that Hitler being an "artist" was so important as to necessitate it being included in the lede sentence of Adolf Hitler, he never would have come to my attention at all. Later, of course, Nashhinton expressed that Hitler was a much better artist than Picasso, when, of course, the judgement of history -- like the judgment of the Vienneese authorities -- was that Hitler was a subo-standard artist. I'm sure we all wish that the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts had accepted Hitler, as it might have spared the world of the horror of the Holocaust, but we can certainly agree with them that Hitler as an artist was essentially a postcard creator - which he made his living at for a while.

The bottom line here is Nashhinton seems to think that his edits should not be subjected to examination the way that any edit on Wikipedia normally is, and that, specifically, two editors who have become aware of his poor editing should not be allowed continue to fix them as necessary, because doing so is "stalking". Tjsi is an editor who cited the blurb advertising a middle school textbook as a reliable source, and who feels confident in contradicting the opinions of ... well, just about anyone who knows anything about the subject, that Hitler was a "good artist", "way better" than Picasso. He's entitled to those opinions, but hes not entitled to edit Wikipedia as if those opinions were facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Now, they're deleting every edit I made 9 years ago. This site is a mafia site. We need a revolution against this site. Nashhinton (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC) 08:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Who is they? El_C 08:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably you or Ken. You hate me, but I just want to get along. Nashhinton (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm just the admin tasked with dealing with you today. I don't hate you. That having been said, probably is not good enough. Please do not make unsubstantiated accusations. El_C 08:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Most people I talk to think Picasso sucked. And that was my personal opinion. If Picasso was good, then I'm Da-Vanci because I can draw realistic Anime figures. But beauty is in the eye's of the Beholder.Nashhinton (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nashhinton - If you cannot accept that Beyond My Ken and El C were acting appropriately and based off legitimate concerns, then there's nothing more that any of us can do to help you or convince you, since it's clear that you're not being receptive or accepting the input from uninvolved editors who are telling you this. We might as well move the focus of this discussion from trying to help you to setting expectations with your edits and behaviors that you need to follow at the risk of having administrative action (such as blocking) being taken in order to prevent disruption to the project. You tell me what you'd like, because I think everyone here is done with trying to help and convince you... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And they showed Hitler's drawings to several art critics without telling them who painted it, and all of the said it was good, so screw these elitist art critics. They get bribes from incompetent plutocrats like Picasso to praise their work. Nashhinton (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think there are issues, here. WP:CIR, for certain, but other issues as well. I'll back off and left uninvolved admins deal with this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki hounding by 24.47.152.65 continued

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After a terrible ordeal of being relentlessly attacked by 24.47.152.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), they are still following me around Wikipedia. Previously, the user was blocked twice in the span of the previous ANI before it was closed, but the latter took a while to accomplish, and as such, I had all but stopped editing and largely abandoned my Watchlist due to this editor's continued harassment.
Their specific edits at Jabari Brisport are not undoing my direct work or passively-aggressively questioning it (under false pretenses) on the Talk page, and I know all about WP:OWN, but it has to be mathematically impossible for them to have randomly found that page less 5 hours after I was there.
I know they are going to respond to this post and say that 1) I am in violation of not informing them of this discussion on their talk page; 2) add some wikilawyerese about the exact definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING and how what they're doing is ever-so-very-carefully not in violation of that; 3) how biased I am, in that out of the tens of thousands of articles I've edited, two of them are DSA members! Preemptively, 1) I don't wish to communicate with this individual ever and it's cute if they were to suggest I made some edit on the mainspace or at ANI that they were not aware of, 2) maybe, but it's definitely some kind of harassment, and 3) their own ratio of DSA articles edited out of total articles shows a much strong correlation of bias.
I don't know if a block is the answer or what kind of sterner warning they need to leave me alone after two blocks for personal attacks, but on the other hand they seem unable to admit the reasons for their blocks, insisting on conspiracy theories and complaints of suppression. A big thanks to anyone who takes the time to parse through the linked ANI above. The current complaint is just one instance, but builds on the prior months'. JesseRafe (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and harrassment by User:Knoxinbox

Knoxinbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is single purpose account has a long history of making disruptive edits to the page International Relief and Development Inc. that whitewash or significantly downplay the company's history of fraud, waste, and abuse. User initially added copyrighted materials (I can't provide diffs, because most of the edits have since been hidden) in an effort to spam the page with content and dilute balanced prose. User then sought to delete content about why the institution renamed itself. More recent attempts have been to add puffery to the page and characterize the organization as a non-profit. User seems eager to revert important contributions, such as organizational improvements to the page. Request sanctions against the user and page protection to International Relief and Development Inc. for extended users. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I am user knoxinbox. I confess that I am not a regular wikipedia editor and this is the first article I have attempted to edit. If I am not following best practices on wikipedia editing I apologize and am happy to revise the content I have added to better conform to accepted standards. I am also struggling to learn your tagging and formatting rules, but that is besides the point. I am not, nor have I ever been an employee of the above mentioned organization, however I had several good friends that were, which is why I am interested in it, and international development in general. The organization has a complex history and it has evolved significantly over the years.

This page is not well known and over the years besides Bangabandhu and myself, only a couple of other persons have tried to edit it. Bangabandhu holds a very critical view of the organization, often making unsubstantiated statements such as the above "company's history of fraud, waste, and abuse". It is true the organization was being investigated for about a year, but this is common in the International NGO world, and there were no findings of wrongdoing.

Bangabandhu has been very hostile towards myself and other editors who have attempted to enrich the article with content not related to scandals. Bangabandhu has frequently removed content without explanation, and at other times twisted the interpretation of the source material to sound more critical than it was. The user insists that the scandal of 2015 be the foremost (and only) thing people know about this organization. I have a wealth of other material, from high quality sources, that I am attempting to add to the page but Bangabandhu reverts my edits within minutes. It has been very frustrating. I would like Wikipedia administrators to advise on how to proceed. -Knoxinbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'll add that the page has long been the target of single purpose accounts. Perhaps these are the "friends" to which Knoxinbox refers? Impartial, experienced editors who have visited the page did not see any reason to take issue with the content. Bangabandhu (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You and I are the only people editing this page. It's an obscure subject that few know about. I am not a regular wikipedia editor, whereas you are. You have seniority in terms of wikipedia activity, but you are not a subject matter expert. All content you have posted so far has been related to the 2015 investigation and suspension - though you conveniently forgot to mention that the suspension was overturned that same year. I had to come along and add that (you subsequently buried it deep in the operations section).

You say everyone (except you) is biased. I say you have shown yourself through your own statements on the talk page to be very biased, and have made a toxic environment for the rest of us who are trying this for the first time. But without other stakeholders unfortunately it is my word against yours. My goal is to continue to enrich the page with material from varied sources that spans the entire life of the organization from 1999 to today. Good or bad.

And I still strongly believe that information on individuals, particularly salary information was put on the page by you, with malicious intent to publicly shame them. It doesn't belong on wikipedia and should be removed. -Knoxinbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject matter expertise is irrelevant. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. The fraud, waste, and abuse has been extensively chronicled in reliable sources, including the Washington Post. There have been many efforts by other impartial editors to remove self-promotion and puffery. For example, see the "advert" tag that was appended in the 17:27, 4 September 2015‎ edit - I can't link to it, as the content was expunged when other editors removed promotional material that was copied verbatim from the organization's website. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

When making a report at ANI, you need to notify the user your reporting by leaving a message on their talk page as stated in red letters near the top of ANI. I have already notified the user in question via their TP. AryaTargaryen (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Thanks for letting me know, this is the first time that I've seen a situation that required this intervention. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Could someone quickly protect these pages please?

One IP-hopping editor is currently orphaning Template:Infobox India district at a pretty fast pace (examples: [64], [65], [66] . This is almost certainly the same editor who's been recently active in several TFDs for similar infoboxes (they all geolocate to the same city and provider, they all display the same strong opinions), so they know very well that they can't just orphan an established template like that without discussion. I can't reach them, as the IP is very dynamic: they make and edit or two and then the IP immediately changes. What is the best way to stop this madness? I'm thinking a temporary semi-protection to the pages that still transclude the template they're trying to orphan might help. – Uanfala (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Adding that there we might also need a longer-term solution here. It's likely this isn't the only infobox this editor will try to surreptitiously orphan like that. They've been active for quite some time at TfD, and even though the community oftentimes ends up agreeing with their points, the way they go about making them is not always constructive (for an example, (see this long quite discussion and search for "canvassing). Now, I've reverted a few of their recent edits, and they've started stalking me (for example, reverting me on an unrelated article [67] or posting to my talk page about another completely unrelated edit I've done [68]). – Uanfala (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The ranges are 89.14.0.0/16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 78.55.0.0/16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), both on the same ISP. Pretty large ranges to block, but the template has 160 transclusions, too many to quickly semiprotect. I'm not sure here. {{|template|checkuser needed}} can you please check the ranges for collateral? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding that I very strongly suspect this a certain registered editor, who used to be very enthusiastic at TfD but stopped editing when a number of problems with their participation there started to get raised. That's not socking by any measure (I don't think they've ever been blocked), but it certainly appears like they're finding the absence of scrutiny afforded by a dynamic IP very convenient. – Uanfala (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I wouldn't hard block them, but you could anon only for a while, and an account creation block wouldn't cause too much collateral damage either. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala is known for disturbing infobox clean-up, including trolling in discussions, e.g. at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 7#Template:Infobox Nepal district. He could explain his reverts, and e.g. explain his position at Template_talk:Infobox_India_district#Edit_warring. This is a content dispute. As clean-up is interrupted by Uanfala, a TfD has now been started: Wikipedia:Templates for_discussion/Log/2019 July 29#Template:Infobox India district. Additionally a user changed the protection settings without providing any reasoning, see Template talk:Infobox India_district#Template protection 78.55.29.138 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

While there may be a content dispute about whether this particular infobox should be used - and MfD is a reasonable place to discuss it, preempting the results of a discussion by deleting uses is a behavioural issue - which are discussed here - does this issue come under the existing DS for infoboxes?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, can you point to a policy that prohibits replacing a little used template with a much more widely used template? Anyway, as said before it is now on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 29#Template:Infobox India district. 78.55.29.138 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala against the mayority:
List of TfDs initiated by IP where Uanfala did show opposing interaction (not allways actually voting) - and no single resulted in keep (i.e. his position lost):

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 7#Infobox settlement wrappers - group TfD for 25 templates closed as no consensus, but each of the 22 that were put into a single TfD afterwards resulted in replace and delete
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 3#Template:Infobox South African municipality
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 6#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 7#Template:Infobox Nepal district
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 15#Template:Infobox townlands
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 22#Template:Infobox Ukrainian raion
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5#Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 6#Template:Infobox Palestine municipality

78.55.29.138 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC) // Strike + clarify 77.183.70.51 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• @IP: please do not rapidly change your IP address if you are able to control it, it makes it very difficult to contact you. I realize that you may not have control over it, but if the only way we have to effectively get your attention is to block you, that's what we'll do. Also, you should presume that deprecation of widely-used templates will be controversial and start a discussion first to gauge consensus, rather than deciding for yourself on a course of action and boldly implementing it. Since you asked, the policy that prohibits such mass changes is WP:CONSENSUS.

Since becoming aware of this thread, the IP editor has stopped their mass-changes and has started a discussion at TFD, so I think we're done here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thank you. I confirm that I read this, and will try to have less IP changes. I will also not replace in India nor anywhere else Infoboxes without TfD decision to do so. 78.55.29.138 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

After TfD started and IP changes addressed

• Thank you, IP, for starting the TfD: that solves the immediate concerns. But could we also have an undertaking from you to abide by WP:CANVASSING? You were made aware of this guideline in last month's discussion of the Japanese prefecture infobox, but now I see that for the current TfD you again have notified only editors who are likely to agree with you. – Uanfala (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uanfala please provide evidence for "but now I see that for the current TfD you again have notified only editors who are likely to agree with you" and show how abiding could have been violated. 77.11.201.49 (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I was able to trace four notifications you've made: [69] [70] [71] [72]. It's not clear how you've selected 1 and 2; #3 who you claim you've notified as the "second contributor" to the template (why him among the dozen or so substantial contributors?) is known for his very strong opinion pro infobox merges; while #4 is the person who previously nominated a similar template for deletion. Also, it's probably not a good idea to ask individual admins to close your TfDs: even if the admin you normally ask weren't known to have a bias that can be seen as favourable to your proposals, it at least appears like you're trying to rush people (remember we're all volunteers here). And on an unrelated note, your habit of responding to people who disagree with you in TfDs with screens upon screens of graphs and lists of other templates is at best a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF; at worst, it can be seen as an attempt to derail the discussion and drown out opposition to your nominations. – Uanfala (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uanfala, as can been seen above from the other discussions you posted text to, you lost it all. On the other hand my arguments in words explained with graphics, statistics, lists and tables have convinced users. Don't you want that deciders have the best information possible avaible to decide on the topic? On the topic of "attempt to derail", I am not an expert for that, when looking at your contributions to the TfDs listed above, where you never supported, you seem to be much better here: making TfD personal, unsubstantiated claims marked as "rant" by yourself, pointing to prior "no consensus" with purely promotional "extensively", to some extend misleading old TfD pointer as later explained, another "old TfD" pointer, supporting FUD, etc.

  Regarding the selection of notifications:

  1. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" - so I only notified four.
  2. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Campaigning" - so I made all my message neutral.
  3. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Votestacking" - so I selected people not one the basis of prior votes in TfD.
  4. WP:CANVASS prohibits "Stealth canvassing" - so I publicly posted on the English Wikipedia user talk pages.

  Regarding asking admins to close - I want to improve the English Wikipedia better today than next year. It involves many steps, a delay in one step may seem irrelevant, but one day for each of 1000 steps is 1000 days delay. Regarding "remember we're all volunteers here" - I remember that this is not true, it has been revealed that paid editing exists. But surely you can explain in more detail why you posted that claim here. Regarding "it at least appears like you're trying to rush people", I am not an expert neither, was it you who created the headline above "Could someone quickly protect these pages please?" and rushed into reverting contributions by a volunteer without giving a reason [73] which in itself might be a violation of editing rules, instead of starting a content discussion per WP:BRD at the template talk? 77.11.201.49 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just following up: when Uanfala first posted this thread I didn't realize this was the same IP editor who was badgering me earlier this month with demands to explain why I didn't see it as a problem that Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada existed ([74], [75]) which they helpfully reminded me of this morning by posting a wall of off-topic images and tables in the discussion ([76]) as a reply to my stale comment from two weeks ago. I suppose that makes me WP:INVOLVED so if there is admin action to take here, some other admin will have to take it. At least to the extent that the editor's IP is still rapidly changing despite my advice further up the thread, they don't appear to be making any other deliberate attempts to evade scrutiny or to appear to be multiple persons, although there's this, or else they're just doing a really poor job of it. The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions is largely unhelpful bordering on disruptive, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, please read WP:ASPERSIONS. The diff you provided after your attack statement which they helpfully reminded me of this morning by posting a wall of off-topic images and tables in the discussion" is not from "this morning", nor is it "off-topic", nor does it contain any posting of an image. Re At least to the extent that the editor's IP is still rapidly changing despite my advice further up the thread - it does not really match, can you explicitely quote the claimed "advice" for anyone to see? Re The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions - where did that happen? Do you want to censor discussions? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  The above reply is descriptive of the just-off-topic-enough-to-be-disruptive nitpicking from this editor. To wit:

  1. The diff you provided after your attack statement is not from "this morning" - the editor can see from the timestamp that I posted my comment at 17:09 UTC yesterday, which they may not have known (but should have checked my userpage to find out before criticizing) is 2:09pm in my time zone. At that time, their comment (timestamped 12:31 UTC, 9:31 Atlantic time) did arrive to me (along with its ping, and several more from other comments on various pages) that morning. The timestamps of the various comments is also completely irrelevant, and demanding an explanation for it is gaslighting.
  2. nor does it contain any posting of an image. This is true. It was not "an image", it was a gallery of fourteen images ([77]). These are not the only graphics they have added to the discussion.
  3. can you explicitely [sic] quote the claimed "advice" for anyone to see? No, I will not quote it. See diff.
  4. Re "The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions" - where did that happen? All of the above, but also:
     • IP has replied to every single new comment in the discussion thread (except for one), often multiple times. In nearly every instance they also ping the editor they are replying to, sometimes (inadvertently by their own explanation) doing so twice by pinging them in their reply and again in their edit summary. (Admittedly this may be a bug)
     • Several of their replies have not been a substantive reply at all but only criticism of the commenter's choice of formatting, often with a veiled (or not-so-veiled) personal attack. ([78], [79], [80])
     • If a reply does not go in exactly the spot that the IP expects it, they criticize the poster and then repeatedly ping them to answer the comment again in their preferred location. ([81], [82])
     • If they don't get the answer they're looking for, they ignore the reply and simply restate the question. ([83] - in this instance they also moved Moxy's comment so that it appears to be a reply to the IP's question when in fact it was not; [84] - asking a repeat question days later when it was already answered)
     • Pinging an administrator they expect to be friendly to their cause. ([85])

  Thus, variously: WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DE, WP:TPO, WP:IDHT, WP:CANVASSING. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Reply - Using Template:Green for quotes, makes reading harder than Template:Tq - but I will just copy it from above, my comment comes after "---":

  1. just-off-topic-enough-to-be-disruptive nitpicking --- nitpicking, if I point out, that you make false claims about events?
  2. The diff you provided after your attack statement is not from "this morning" - the editor can see from the timestamp that I posted my comment at 17:09 UTC yesterday [...] --- You wrote "which they helpfully reminded me of this morning" - I didn't post "this morning" what your diff showed, the diff was from 27 July 19:52 UTC and your claim from 30 July 17:09 UTC. You edited on 28 and 29 July. It just doesn't fit.
  3. The timestamps of the various comments is also completely irrelevant, --- OK, then why did you start providing them?
  4. and demanding an explanation for it is gaslighting --- even if it is, nobody asked for such an explanation, at least no one I know of. Why do you put this into this list? WP:ASPERSIONS
  5. nor does it contain any posting of an image. This is true. It was not "an image", it was a gallery of fourteen images --- Not true: [86], you changed the diff, why?
  6. can you explicitely [sic] quote the claimed "advice" for anyone to see? No, I will not quote it. See diff. --- There is text starting with "Please", but I can see no advice of a type that you claimed.
  7. Re "The tendentious campaigning and sledgehammering of discussions" - where did that happen? All of the above --- WP:ASPERSIONS - where above is any evidence for "tendentious campaigning"?
  8. IP has replied to every single new comment in the discussion thread (except for one), often multiple times --- Not true.
  9. If a reply does not go in exactly the spot that the IP expects it, they criticize the poster and then repeatedly ping them to answer the comment again in their preferred location. ([87], [88]) --- Why did you put the two diffs in the wrong chronological order? Also, the other editor explicitly changed their post after I pointed out formatting issues.[89] He also mentioned "interweaving" and I addressed that, since it would not apply, as all the statements were seperately signed. Again, this is a problem of WP:ACCESS cf. wmf:Resolution:Nondiscrimination. If you think that is irrelevant, talk to the WMF. IMO every piece of text in any namespace on WMF-servers should be as accessible as possible.
  10. If they don't get the answer they're looking for, they ignore the reply and simply restate the question --- only sometimes and only if the question was not addressed.
  11. in this instance they also moved Moxy's comment so that it appears to be a reply to the IP's question when in fact it was not --- in fact the reply used "only" and "13" which was used in my "only 13 do?" and I had pinged Moxy.
  12. asking a repeat question days later when it was already answered --- three signatures in that diff, none from me, but two from you - did you mean to complain about yourself?
  13. Pinging an administrator they expect to be friendly to their cause. ([90]) --- WP:ASPERSIONS. The admin pinged is one of two that I know regularly close, the other is Primefac. I recently had asked Primefac, now this time I asked the other. I really don't care. "friendly to their cause" - that is what? Improve Wikipedia? I hope so!
  14. Thus, variously: WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DE, WP:TPO, WP:IDHT, WP:CANVASSING --- WP:ASPERSIONS - for each individual claim you should provide evidence.

  77.183.70.51 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• The badgering is pretty bad, yes. Just look at the last couple of screens in the Canadian province TfD, with the latest gems in the series [91] [92] [93] [94]. Given that this is not one-off, but a persistent pattern throughout most of their TfD nominations, I think some action is necessary:
  Proposal. This editor is banned from replying in TfD discussions. They're allowed one comment per TfD discussion, subject to the exception that they may reply to a question explicitly addressed at them. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Uanfala, you are known to have commented in several occasions against my TfD proposals, and in not a single of such cases the closing of the proposal resulted in Keep. Now you are campaigning against me on ANI and propose that my comments regarding templates and content be censored. Of the four diffs you provided three were related to editing - I usually don't make comments like these, because usually the editing style by the others isn't that disruptive. I know, some people assume blind users with screen readers don't exist, but there is even a wmf:Resolution:Nondiscrimination on that topic, cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot - Uanfala could start with applying "This editor is banned from replying in TfD discussions. They're allowed one comment per TfD discussion" to his own contributions to demonstrate how it works. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Just noting that after a side-discussion in the TfD about indenting in which the IP first made this connection to the accessibility policy, I invited them to continue the discussion on my talk page, as I am genuinely interested in how indenting either with or without a bullet is an issue for screen readers. As of this edit they have not accepted my invitation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  "invited them" - not even 24h have passed. Wao. ... It breaks the context, nothing more to say. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposal per my comments above, but I suggest it include a ban from discussions about infoboxes broadly construed, noting an exception for TfD nominations and replying to comments specifically addressed to them. The editor might have good points about some infoboxes but they are being a fanatic about it and disrupting consensus-building with their obsessive bludgeoning. It would be better if they made their point and moved on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Struck my alternative suggestion, it's too broad. Their input on infoboxes is useful, their behaviour in replies is not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, thank you for the struck. Regarding your campaign list above against me contributing to WP:INFOCOL, what about putting that effort into content and templates? Double-pinging - I told you already that I didn't know it happened, why do you bring it up again. Etc. Looks all like a smear campaign by you and Uanfala - both of you opposing my views re WP:INFOCOL. And why do you run all this under "Could someone quickly protect these pages please?" - TfDs are normally closed after 7~10 days. There are only few low-inclusion Infobox settlement wrappers left, so it all will soon be over anyway. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  This will be the third time I've asked today: stop pinging me. I have spent enough time replying to your repeat questions and accusations on multiple pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Where did you ever ask that? - Per WP:ASPERSIONS you should provide evidence. - I now don't ping you, because it is the first time I see such a request. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  More tendentious "I didn't see that" from this editor. Here are the three requests: [95], [96], [97]. Here are all the times you have pinged me since midnight Atlantic time: [98] (twice), [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], plus nine more pings earlier in the week. Enough now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  More tendentious "I didn't see that" from this editor. : WP:ASPERSIONS. Here are the three requests

  1. [105] - posted 14:22, 31 July 2019 - has no such request
  2. [106] - posted 17:27, 31 July 2019 - "I'm getting tired of being pinged to new pages by this editor." - Not sure how often that happened, but in that case Ivanvector unilaterly changed the protection settings 17:21, 29 July 2019, despite the topic having been discussed and addressed by another admin, shortly before [107], and thanked for by me [108] in a transparently named section "Template protection". Summary, not a request but a description "getting tired" ... @IP if you ping me on some new page again, I will ask someone to block you - I have not seen that, until "Where did you ever ask that? / 18:12, 31 July 2019", and it is also not a request but a conditional threat. Furthermore "if you ping me on some new page again" - I am not sure how "new page" and "again" are meant to be read, could allow a first ping from a new page, but not an again ping from such a new page. But it doesn't matter anymore, due to the 17:47, 31 July 2019 posted request not to ping at all.
  3. [109] - posted 17:47, 31 July 2019 - the request that contained the statement in question "This will be the third time I've asked today: stop pinging me." --- Not true - if the diffs provided show all places that could have such requests - it's only the first time.

  You made such a fuss and threats [see above] about IP changing, now I had the same IP for a long time - but you don't use the talk for such urgent (?) matter you get angry about if I don't see it within 79 minutes, because you post it on some template talk, despite it not being a template issue. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Shangoman1964

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This legal threat was made by Shangoman1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) earlier today at Cauley Woodrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), concerning the inclusion content regarding the subject's father, which is reliably sourced. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yep that’s a legal threat. WP:DOLT analysis, however, indicates that it’s in response to a possible BLP violation. I haven’t researched the reliability of the source, but it should be double-checked in light of DOLT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  The sourcing in my view is shaky. The claim of parentage is sourced to an interview with Gregor MacGregor of the Bristol Post that’s hosted on Watford FC’s website. A quick search elsewhere shows no other sources that could be called reliable repeating that claim: a blog post claiming to interview Martin Patching, the man claimed to be his father, and a player profile on transfermarkt. I would ask whether the claim of parentage is particularly necessary for the article we have—it’s just a passing mention and isn’t deeply embedded in this article or particularly important. Obviously there’s nothing wrong with saying who this guy’s father is if indeed we have the right source. But for my money the source is weak and the claim of parentage isn’t particularly necessary for this article. That said, the complaints of this editor have gone from “Woodrow doesn’t want his father mentioned” to “Patching never played any role in Woodrow’s life” to the current “Patching is not Woodrow’s father.” So I’d take it with a grain of salt. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Indeffed. It's a legal threat and it's not their first. They were warned about this back in May. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The BLP policy tells us to remove this name.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Both he and his father are public figures. I don't see how disregarding easily verifiable information is the right thing to do.★Trekker (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The issue here was a breach of WP:NLT, which clearly occurred. Questions involving the suitability of specific content in the article are probably best addressed on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  WP:DOLT counsels us to look at the underlying issue rather than saying "That's a legal threat, blocked, case closed." Thus it's appropriate to look at the underlying issue to some extent here, at least to the point necessary to determine whether there are BLP issues on the article that need addressing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Why, in the 5 years that this has been in dispute, is this the first time that any discussion of it has been raised on the talk page? Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a very good question. But it's not one that belongs here. Unless someone has an issue related to this topic that requires administrator intervention, I suggest further discussion relating to the article be moved to its talk page and this thread be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, it actually does belong here - there are many edits with an obvious COI trying to remove things they don't like from the article.Lurking shadow (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • If you are referring to Shangoman1964, I have blocked them indefinitely. If there are other instances of disruptive editing that are not stale, please point them out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• I see that with no discussion on the talk page, and ignoring the pointer to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in the edit history, ARMcgrath (talk · contribs) has just put the content back in. I've removed the disputed content and fully protected the page. Not using the talk page now is unacceptable. Feel free to unprotect when editors have discussed this on the talk page, as should have happened years ago. Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Uncle G. Given the relatively sporadic, albeit long term, nature of the edit warring; full protection seems a rather extreme reaction. But indefinitely locking the article looks like using a nuke to swat a fly. Just the view from where I'm standing. You may see something I'm missing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm seeing an article where it is long overdue for editors to go to the talk page, and even an explicit pointer to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy does not get them to go to the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I've reduced the full protection to three days. Preventing anyone from ever editing the page again is an overreaction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Only if one does not understand what "indefinite" means, or has not actually read the above. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent edit warring to introduce honorifics at multiple school articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Cobb County School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)‎
• Lassiter High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pebblebrook High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alan C. Pope High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• George Walton Comprehensive High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cobb Virtual Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been explained to each IP. Before they can accrue enough warnings to be blocked, the user then returns with a new IP to resume same. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC) ‎

They probably aren't deliberately changing their IP, and it's possible they've never seen the warnings. This behavior actually extends far beyond these articles, though. Some of the edits are coming from the residential subnet 2601:CD:C101:5870:0:0:0:0/64, which I've blocked for 1 year for disruptive editing. Other edits are coming from Verizon wireless, and blocking him from that range cannot be done without substantial collateral, so I haven't touched it for now, but I'm not necessarily opposed to it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, and thank you. Your point re:deliberate change of IPs is well taken, as that happens to me, based on this flimsy rural connection. Use your own best judgment as far as the Verizon based edits. Thanks again, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This happens nearly every year about this time on the Cobb County high schools. It's trolling plain and simple. Just deploy whatever parts of WP:RBI you can use and move on. John from Idegon (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:QuackGuru/List of diet food creators

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could somebody please take a look at the speedy deletion request at User talk:QuackGuru/List of diet food creators? My removal of the CSD tag has been reverted twice, and my enquiries on the user's talk page have gone unanswered. It may be eligible to for speedy deletion, but I can't work out from the logs whether it was a talk page that should be preserved or not. --kingboyk (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Question - Did you try to reach out to the user whose talkpage you are trying to delete (User_talk:QuackGuru)? I know you said that you made enquiries on the talk page but I just wanted to check if you meant that user's own talk page or the talk page associated with that specific subpage, since he may have overlooked your messages depending on where they were posted. In general, user talk pages are not normally speedy deleted but I can see why it could be controversial in this case just because the associated user subpage was deleted. I agree that it's not clear what that user's intended desire was. Michepman (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, on the user's talk page, with a request to ping me so I could delete it if appropriate. The first rollback happened after that. There was still no response when I visited to leave the ANI notice. -- [please ping me if you need a reply] kingboyk (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Edit to add: My (polite?) messages and the ANI notice have been reverted by the user. (edit conflict)

Thanks, I just saw it. Yeah, hopefully they are just away from their computer at the moment but will respond shortly. (I noticed on their page that it says that they are on a 'break' from Wikipedia). As I mentioned earlier, it is not normal for talk pages to be deleted summarily (unless there's a rule violation or the like) but I can see why there's ambiguity in this case. Michepman (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it's also fairly abnormal to revert admin removal of CSD tags (and to delete their messages without replying :)). Hence thinking it best to ask for another person to have a look. Thanks! -- [please ping me if you need a reply] kingboyk (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The only real "talk" content on that page is what can be found in this version, an unrealized request to a few editors to make a video. It actually seems to have nothing to do with the userpage this is a talk page of, so I'm not sure why the requests were made there, but it does mean that G8 does not apply. Since there is discussion in the page history, U1 does not apply either. I don't think that any CSD criteria apply to this one, but I also don't see an obvious need for the page to be retained. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've deleted the page in question. It appears that it was actually a re-write/update to our Soil article and QG had finished with it. — Ched :  ?  — 04:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aspenheitz: Disruptive editing and NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Aspenheitz (talk · contribs)

Besides adding uncited information to articles, Aspenheitz has done little else in his fairly short (270 edits) EN-wiki career except add unwarranted WP:STUB tags to fully-fledged articles, moreover at the top of the article instead of the bottom (random sample: [110]). I reverted dozens of these yesterday -- didn't get them all by any means but I got tired. I do not know whence this novel form of disruptive editing stems, but he had already been indeffed from FR-wiki for "Use of an automatic translator despite multiple warnings, refusal of discussion" [111], [112] (plus a bunch of deleted articles [113]), so I suppose he brought his WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE tendencies to EN-wiki instead. He has a talkpage full of various kinds of warnings [114] (he has deleted one of them [115]), including my warning about the unwarranted stub tags [116], but he made sure to defy that warning too and just now added another unwarranted stub tag: [117]. I think he needs to be indeffed as NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

203.177.49.226 - continued vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.177.49.226 has had repeated warnings and has vandalised more pages. Please consider further admin actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.133.53 (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amaury - Accusing my account of being a Sockpuppet and giving no reasons why

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Basically, I was doing some editing on the Descendants page today, and when User:Amaury reverted my edits, she than said my account was a sock without giving any reason why. The only reason (if you can call it a reason) she even gave was "That falls into WP:OSE territory. And sock, in any case." She refuses to listen to me as she keeps reverting her talk page back, no matter what I say (I try to say to her that I changed my username, which I did and that I made this account in 2015, but nothing's working). I cannot even say that i've mentioned her here on her talk page, as she'll revert it back too and i'm not bothering to argue with her anymore in case she falsely reports me and getting my account blocked. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Have to somewhat agree here. Without knowing the details of Amaury's accusations, I cannot speak to if this user is a sock or not, but the dismissive nature Amaury has shown, both removing talk page posts and reverting with accusations is troubling. Though, while they have reverted your every attempt to communicate Luigitehplumber, you are still required to notify them about this discussion. Please do so now. 2001:4898:80E8:8:AAE4:C751:69FA:FD96 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

LTPHarry did, User:Amaury deleted it. So we can assume she did see it. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Just so we can get our pronouns straight, Amaury's userpage indicates that he is male. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I figured LTPHarry knew something I didn't about their gender. Alright. My apologies for misgendering you Amaury -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Increasingly concerning that their response is to say "This user has been blocked on another account before as a confirmed sock and has known WP:DE issues, regardless. An explanation is not required when dealing with socks, especially LTAs. Not saying this one is necessarily an LTA, but it's why reverting socks is exempt from 3RR." That's not okay. 2001:4898:80E8:8:AAE4:C751:69FA:FD96 (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Amaury 24 hours for edit warring and casting aspersions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeatedly violating MoS despite warnings & recent block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2405:204:3489:1C82:0:0:10F6:80AD has continued to violate MOS:BOLD and MOS:CAPTION as soon as the recent 48-hour block for the same behaviour expired. The IP has made no effort to discuss the problem. David Biddulph (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

They've now discovered a fondness for adding flags to infoboxes. I've reverted about a dozen. Their most recent addition was almost three hours after I left a note on their talk page asking them to stop. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

QAnon-flavored threats from 188.138.234.73

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see edit to User talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearian&diff=prev&oldid=909011945

Also vandalism on Susan M. Gordon page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_M._Gordon&diff=prev&oldid=908982051

PvOberstein (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I blocked that IP address for two weeks for harassment and BLP violations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rojava - Violation of consensus reached after the closing of a "Request for comment"-discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This re-added segment [118] by User:عمرو بن كلثوم was the target of a lengthy discussion on the Rojava talk page including a Wikipedia:Requests for comment discussion, resulting in a consensus among the editors that participated in the discussion, with the sole dissenting voice being User:عمرو بن كلثوم. The discussion was later automatically closed. See discussion here: [119] & [120]. Now the editor has gone against the consensus that was reached and added his segment again. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The user making this accusation here is claiming reaching a consensus on the Talk page, which is not true. He adamantly insists on deleting material sourced from the Telegraph and other respected media outlets added to slightly balance a VERY BIASED article full of propaganda and unreliable sources. Please have a look at his behavior across the wiki and his edit-warring record. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This matter concerns the recent violation of the consensus that was reached on the Rojava talk page regarding the "human rights violations" section on the Rojava article. While I don't believe that I have anything to hide regarding my previous contributions on Wikipedia, please stick to the matter at hand and refrain from unwarranted accusations. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

---

One of you two should list the RfC on WP:ANRFC since it hasn't actually been formally closed yet. El_C 00:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I would argue that since there was a clear consensus, that a request for closure wouldn't be warranted as specified in WP:ANRFC and as it states: "if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion". And as I'm sure you know, per Wikipedia:Consensus, a consensus does not need to be unanimous. AntonSamuel (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

At a glance, the {{closed rfc top/bottom}} tags have not been applied and a closing note has yet to have been added. El_C 00:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was closed automatically by Legobot and per WP:RFC adding the tags is optional/not required. AntonSamuel (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Legobot archiving does not mean the RfC was closed. As far as I can see, closure was not applied. El_C 01:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

One of the ways a discussion can end per WP:RFC: "5. The discussion may just stop, and no one cares to restore the rfc tag after the bot removes it." and "Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." In this case the bot closed the discussion 4 days after the last addition to the discussion with no requests to open it again, 30 days after it started as is standard. I had also stated in the discussion, that since there had been no new comments for a while, that if consensus was now clearly reached, the discussion should end and the agreed upon segment should replace the old one. AntonSamuel (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it's so much easier to parse an RfC that has been formally closed. Amr ibn Kulthoum, who besides you object to the resolution reached in the RfC? Because (again, at a glance) it looks like it's you versus everyone else. El_C 01:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I've further reviewed the RfC and formally closed it. See my closing comment above. El_C 18:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing ethnoreligious POV-push by Tannerbzd using attacking edit-summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tannerbzd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS using edit-summaries and text both on their talkpage and article talk with religion and ethnicity-related attacks. Some sample contributions: Opening a section titled "So called genocide but total racism against Turks" at Talk:Turkey denying that the Armenian Genocide happened, blanking the Adana Massacre details at Adana with edit-summary:

Don’t Christian wash Adana. Armenians were living happily until evangelican fundementalists and the French came to arm and ruin the harmony in the region and organized systematic attack against Turks and other ethnicities in the region.

Deleting mention of the Armenian and Greek genocides and adding POV at Turkish people with edit-summary:

Stop white washing Turkish history. Millions of Turks lost their lives and Wikipedia is nothing but Christian washed! Turkish lives matter, too!!!

Polemic on their talkpage ending with "Hoping to see less white- Greek / Armenian/ Christian washed history here!! ", and second polemic on their talkpage with section header: "Greek and Armenian hatred against Turks". Finally, vandalism at "Pontic Greeks" changing their description to "Pontic Turks", and erasing the Armenian name at Manti (food). I think this account is a case of NOTHERE and they should be indeffed. Dr. K. 01:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revoke talk page access for 160.177.43.101

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Put this IP's disruptive playtime to rest please. Making use of div tags disruptively as part of his unblock request. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock request for 2601:248:C580:32CA::/64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Range contribs: [121]

This range has been used for vandalism and disruptive editing for a while. See edit history. Requesting a range block. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hanover Research has resumed political edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding the previous cases which were archived at Washington DC area IPs inserting biased political analysis and Hanover Research is still disrupting political topics, the person is back at their old tricks. The person edits from the area of Greater Washington DC from Special:Contributions/64.132.42.50 registered to Hanover Research Council, a for-hire public relations firm which was blocked three times under the main IP, from the range Special:Contributions/2601:140:8B00:1300:0:0:0:0/64 (blocked here as a range, here, here and here) and, recently, the range Special:Contributions/2601:14D:8600:B0E0:0:0:0:0/64. Back in March, the person was rangeblocked as Special:Contributions/2601:140:8B80:2320:0:0:0:0/64 but they evaded the block with Special:Contributions/96.88.202.153 and Special:Contributions/68.33.74.54.

Can we block the recently active IPs Special:Contributions/2601:14D:8600:B0E0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/64.132.42.50? Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complaint

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. I guess this concerned editor User:Bonadea to save his face collapsed the content. Take a look at this. [122]
2. Without any valid evidence I am being given wrongful warnings when I did not attack. Look at my talk page. Since the warnings are wrongful, I guess the problem was better brought over here.
3. If this is how wikipedia is, I guess it may loose its value. It may continue to be famous, but will be considered valueless. I am sure wikipedia will need its value maintained and improved. I am here to help wikipedia improve. I am here to catch fraudulent sources and expose them. I am here to get the right sources get prominence.
4. I guess many may not like what I am doing with fraudulent sources, but I am sure many will like as well.
5. I am not very well knowledgeable with editing standards. If I was wrong in my approach, someone wise should help me. All I know is I am being truthful with myself.
6. I am sure other better editors are here. So, I am here with you all. ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You are skating close to a WP:BOOMERANG block here. GAB^gab 14:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This was a message AUMSat left on their talk page in a reply to Bonadea: "If there is an organized bias on purpose, you all might have to go to jail at some point. Beware." Sounds like a legal threat. Also, AUMSat, you never notified Bonadea of this discussion. I have done it for you. — MRD2014 (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You have done little else but make personal attacks against Bonadea at a variety of messageboards, interspersed with existential questions about verifiability that are at odds with Wikipedia's fundamental policies, and vague claims about fraudulent sources. I have taken the liberty of refactoring your personal attack against Bonadea in the header. There is no basis to this complaint, and if this continues, you will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

36.85.45.100

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:36.85.45.100 deleted a legit talkpage comment after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. Hut 8.5 16:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rev del for a BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just reverted an edit at Rakesh Shukla (animal welfare activist). It should probably be rev-deled per WP:BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Antisemitism from User:Flash512

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This edit to our article on The Holocaust indicates either promotion of anti-Semitism incompatible with Wikipedia, or vile trollery also incompatible with Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• indef. Overdoing the ((( by a long mile, and clearly NOTTHERE.Icewhiz (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. Not sure if this is a compromised account. But the edit falls under WP:ZT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the account is compromised; the vandalism is consistent with previously expressed POV. Antandrus (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPA-violating IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Also, violated 3RR. Seems to be familiar with Wikipedia. El_C 01:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• • This user seems to be playing some kind of ridiculous game, repeatedly posting to my talk page, even protecting it so I could not remove their messages. Their pal has made a spurious post to AIV and several others are playing a very bizarre game involving tag team reverting, and telling me to use the talk page while ignoring it themselves. Extraordinarily immature and disruptive. 46.208.236.169 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Community banned User:Drinkreader continuing to edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Drinkreader was banned by the community [123] in October 2018 for a wide variety of disruptive behavior and using sockpuppets. I believe this user has returned and has made a series of edits at Talk:Old Fashioned using IPs including: 2600:8807:5000:d9a:785d:21da:5259:385c (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.203.26.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2600:8807:5000:D9A:49F7:6D63:6374:FED (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I was uninvolved in the CBAN on DrinkReader, but this appears to me be the same person, based on the style and content of the edits. Not only is this circumventing the ban, but they are making unacceptable accusations against other editors that grossly violate WP:NPA, for example: [124]. We could do with admin eyes on that page and those IPs. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Editor is continuing to edit, for example: [125]. Could we get the IP of this banned user blocked? Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:Contributions/2600:8807:5000:D9A::/64 for one year. Blocking individual IPv6 addresses is like playing whack-a-mole with 2^64 moles, and I'll note that the /64 was previously blocked for 2 weeks back in May for block evasion. Seems like a relatively static range. ST47 (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wikiman2718 on Autism rights movement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User has strong POV. He is deleting sourced criticism with edit summary "deleted redundant information" and paragraph with "reads better without it" [126] [127] Amazonz (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

well, considering what he deleted came from a large chunk he had just copy pasted over from another article, here some of the information may well have been "redundant", and "read better without it". No idea of the merits of any of the edits, but you don't appear to have discussed anything with him anywhere, which you should have, before filing here. Curdle (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

He wouldn't delete entire "Criticism" section but replaced it with other text if that was the case. Amazonz (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

In addition, "Controversy" section he added is about different thoughts within autism activism movement, criticism is about views outside of the movement. Amazonz (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. I'd like someone to check if Amazonz is a sock of Sourcerery. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

If you have evidence that Amazonz is a sock of that particular annoying sockmaster I'd suggest you take it to WP:SPI. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple people accusing you of same thing, almost as if it's true. Amazonz (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I also suspected Amazonz is a sock this morning, but don't have the evidence for an SPI. In any case, the editor has been restoring text deleted on multiple articles today without discussion on article talk pages, lecturing users on guidelines after only being here two days. O3000 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OP banned as sock. Success. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urgent attention needed by an admin at RFPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Admins. The Joel Wilson (umpire) article urgently requires semi-protection due to vandalism (attributed to his poor decisions during The Ashes Test match going on at the moment). Could any admin be able to add the semi-protection requested at WP:RFPP (and supported by other editors) quickly please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal Threats at Hack Forums

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There have been numerous legal threats made by Gotchynow (talk · contribs) at AvalerionV (talk · contribs), including [128] and [129] (as well as a duplicate message left at my talk page.)

It seems that the dispute revolves around this edit in question, which has a dubious self-published source at best. I did warn Gotchynow on making legal threats but they continued to do so, as linked above. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I will add a comment in my defense. I reverted an edit made by an anonymous contributor. That's about it. I am not affiliated with the article or the website. While it is true I wrote the Wikipedia article, I think the edit should be not reverted just because the owner of the website doesn't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvalerionV (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

AvalerionV, you claimed the website hackhex.com was yours on your user page. The edit should not be reverted because the owner of the website doesn't like it but it should be reverted because it was not based on a reliable source (an anonymous guest post). Schazjmd (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please visit the article and check if the author name matches to mine. Not to mention match my name to the website original WHOIS record as well. If you don't see my name matching to both of these than I am not affiliated with the website anymore or have anything to do with this. You are not affiliated with Hack Forums by any chance because I have never seen you contribute a single edit? AvalerionV (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, have never heard of Hack Forums or hackhex.com until I saw the discussion at the Teahouse and checked it out. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

AvalerionV Can you please clarify whether or not you have a conflict-of-interest in this dispute with Gotchynow, given the diff that Schazjmd linked? Also, do you still have any affiliation or COI regarding hackhex.com? OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I have not received any e-mail or direct message from Gotchynow about any lawsuit so I guess not? And no.

(Non-administrator comment) @AvalerionV: The content in question seems to have been first add by IP with here, but it was removed by another editor shortly thereafter here. The reasons given for that removal seem to have merited at least some discussion on the article's talk page, particularly since it's about a living person per WP:BLPREMOVE; so, re-adding it again like you did with here was not really the best thing to do. As pointed out above, you did add info to your user page that Hackhex, the source cited in support of that content was "your website", but you subsequently removed that info here; so, it's not unreasonable for someone to see that and wonder if you do have a connection to this that goes beyond Wikipedia. If you say you don't, then others will assume good faith and take you at your word. At the same time, if someone claims that content possibly has serious BLP concerns and the sourcing is questionable per WP:BLPSPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB, then you shouldn't be so quick to write off their concerns. It's best to be cautious here and try and get things right. The disputed content has been removed once again by another editor; if you feel strongly that it should be re-added, then the onus is actually on you to establish a consensus for doing so on the article's talk page.

As for the other stuff, Gotchynow's edit sum is clearly not the way to go about seeking resolution per WP:NLT; they've been warned and a better way for them to seek resolution has been suggested. Their first removal of the content, however, could possibly fall under BLPREMOVE as well as what's suggested in item 2 of WP:COIADVICE. If the content is restored to the article per consensus and Gotchynow continues to remove it, then that would require administrator sanctioning. I'm not sure how Gotchynow can retract a "legal threat" from an edit sum, but they should be also sanctioned if they make any new threats. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to remind the admins that the owner posted a thread on his website: hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=5995824 (Thread titled: Wikipedia Editor Needed) requiring assistance from anyone who might be a registered user on Wikipedia and I quote him, "Anyone got solid connects with any Wikipedia higher-ups?" His last statement on the thread was and I quote "EDIT: Looks like I finally got someone to deal with it at Wikipedia. I gotta say that their whole system is NOT user friendly." If this is the case then definitely someone here (affiliated with Hack Forums) was/is reverting the edits. This is a clear violation of editing policy and I find myself in a situation attacked by a mob affiliated with Hack Forums. In any case if the original thread gets removed I have uploaded a screenshot of the thread AvalerionV (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It is well known that Wikipedia's policies are labyrinthine. I see no sign of anyone making any edits influenced by that post, just a standard response from editors responding to the on-wiki situation. I also see no admins have yet commented on this thread, so allow me to say clearly, the reason your edits was reverted was because it sucks in terms of Wikipedia policy. You've have a decent analysis above. I'd hope henceforth you refrain from such activity. Please don't underestimate how easily admins bore of off-wiki disputes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Joining this talk to share the full message in the thread posted by Jesse LaBrocca, the hackforums.net admin/owner. The previous mention of it only contained part of the message.

Anyone got solid connects with any Wikipedia higher-ups? I got an assclown abusing edits on the HF Wiki page and I can't fugging seem to figure out their bullshit. Basically a butthurt banned member is editing the page and making libelous remarks. I want his lies removed. PM me asap. EDIT: Looks like I finally got someone to deal with it at Wikipedia. I gotta say that their whole system is NOT user friendly. — C4Vendetta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC).

And now I'm joining this because I've been sucked in, having just responded to this Teahouse post by AvalerionV. I agree with zzuuzz that there's nothing more to do be done here. Gotchynow has been blocked; there seems to be no concerted edits to Hack Forums; the off-wiki comments are trivial; AvalerionV needs to read WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:BLP/WP:BLPSPS and to develop a thicker skin if called names (off-wiki) for reinstating edits that should never have been put back in, especially as those IP edits made accusations in a tone that I couldn't actually find in the anonymous source article. Whilst attacks on editors 'on-wiki' should be taken seriously, I can find no evidence of AvalerionV receiving any such posts on their talk page or at Talk:Hack Forums. I reckon this thread can be closed. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Softlavender

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Take a look here. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Boomerang, ip has received quite a few warnings to cease their disruptive edits. Cards84664 (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 69.120.40.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been deliberately randomly removing neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts simply because they are cited to the Daily Mail. He has been warned about it 8 times so far (now 10 times): [130]. Clear-cut gossip and irrelevant trivia is fine to remove, but the user is mostly removing neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts, quite deliberately. Time for a block. Softlavender (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC); edited 01:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Here's a sample edit. WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:BLPSOURCES exist for a reason. Time for a block perhaps indeed. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

For your personal attacks too. Cards84664 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

IP is still doing it, and edit-warring as well: [131], [132], [133]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC); edited 01:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup, and thanks for self-reporting. That is an edit you should never have made. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit is beyond the pale. Self-revert in the next 60 minutes and I promise not to take it further. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"Beyond the pale"?! Do you have any concept of what that means? Clearly not, as you applied it to a trivial pop music dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Would you think it trivial if this was said on your article, if you were notable enough to have one?

Most of their songs are written by their mother, who also acts as their manager. In January 2004, their first single, "The Cheeky Song (Touch My Bum)" was voted the worst pop record of all time in a Channel 4 poll.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-205047/Cheeky-Girls-worst-pop-title.html |title=Cheeky Girls get worst pop title |author=<!--no byline--> |date=<!--no publication date specified--> |publisher=MailOnline – dailymail.co.uk |accessdate=3 December 2012}}</ref>

--69.120.40.196 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• I see nothing is going to be resolved here. I'm going to pursue this otherwise. I'm disappointed. `69.120.40.196 (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Left hand, meet right hand: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Daily Mail on BLPs. Uncle G (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked 69.x for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Impersonation?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Posting here because WP:RFCN says "Do NOT post here if the user in question has made no recent edits." and because I am not sure whether this requires any administrator action.

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

...appears to be an impersonation of...

Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

...but has not actually edited. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon! Your diligence and attention to usernames and account creations is highly valued and appreciated. :-) This editor has been idle since creation, which was over a year ago. There's no point in blocking the account unless it becomes active and begins to edit. Even then, we'd assume good faith and try talking to the user and asking them to change their username first. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that I do "own" the account Fae and if I recall correctly Faelig, under the provisions for handling doppelganger accounts. This particular account I have not noticed and was not created through my action. The naming might be coincidence as "Fæ" has become a more popular name over recent years. --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editor: LegsLikeNeedles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User has plenty final warnings as well as a previous block by Oshwah for the same thing they continue doing, adding unsourced content to articles here, here and here just recently. Please could an admin cast an eye and perhaps a longer block may be the incentive to instill the policy of verifiability. Robvanvee 15:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

From checking the user's history I cannot find them using any edit summaries or any indication that they are willing to communicate with other editors. So this person may warrant an indef with the caveat that they could be unblocked if they are willing to both follow policies and communicate with other editors when their edits are questioned/reverted. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 16:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This person has made 162 edits and has racked up a dozen warnings on their talk page. They have never once posted on any talk page, including their own. I have given an indefinite block, explaining clearly what they must do to get unblocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism and tendentious editing at American football

I've previously filed an edit warring noticeboard discussion here but nothing has been commented on and I was advised to come here. User:SWAGnificient has been tendentiously editing the American football page, attempting to add content that has been rejected by previous consensus and citing a thread on the talk page where such a change was rejected as evidence. He has reverted myself and another editor (GrammarDamner) three times at this point, and a third user BilCat (who is retired) has also disagreed with him. His response has been to claim there is a 3-1 consensus on the talk in favor of inclusion (there is not), to say everyone who disagrees with him is a "fanboy", and to vandalize my user page. This needs to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 14:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

i provided sources for my edit. but these 2 (billcat and toa) have had a stranglehold on the page for years and will remove everything from the page if it doesn't support their narrative and in the case of Toa i believe, fantasy. His (Toa's) whole page revolves around american football and is a self described football nut. i would assume an editor like him/her would welcome a more complete page. my edit even fits the criteria they made up for the page. yet despite that and me providing sources, its still reverted and justified as vandalism. you might want to look up what vandalism is, because nothing i wrote is incorrect or disparaging. SWAGnificient (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

their new tactics seem to be to try to have me banned or blocked, since they can't provide proper sourcing for their assertions. yesterday i was reported for a revert violation, even though i didn't even brake the rule. SWAGnificient (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

When you are edit warring with multiple editors to force in content that has been rejected and then vandalize user pages, you tend to get reported. Toa Nidhiki05 15:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. It's clear given the article's history that this has been ongoing for some time, and will only continue unless action is taken. I hope that this is all that's needed to motivate SWAGnificient to self-reflect and understand that what they're doing is against policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• I can't see how an edit like this could be seen as tendentious, it's properly sourced (Forbes) and factually correct (American Football is minimal in Europe, and seen as a "novelty sport"; don't know about Japan though, but if Forbes say it's minimal there too, I believe them...). It's the claim in the infobox of American Football about it being a worldwide sport "most prominent in North America, Europe, and Japan" that is blatantly wrong. It's prominent in the US only (Canada have their own version...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• If you read the talk you’ll understand. His sources are patently insufficient (Forbes contributor and a Medium blog) but more importantly it’s not corroborated in the body and is incredibly poorly written. American football is a good article and needs to maintain a high level of quality and adhesion to guidelines.
• The infobox issue is inane at this point: the criteria listed on the Infobox template is that any presence counts. American football is, in fact, played in every continent whether in professional, semi-pro, or amateur leagues. This is supported in the body. If anything, the amount of detail in the infobox is excessive: few if any other sports articles explain in that detail, and it usually just left as “global”. The level of prominence there refers to professions and semi-pro leagues, which do in fact exist in Europe and Japan. There have been repeated attempts to change the infobox by people who do not understand what that actually means. Moreover, the blocked editor was going against consensus, falsely claiming a consensus existed to support him when it actually didn’t (2 editors opposed, he supported), and then vandalized my user page. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Last time I checked "Worldwide" covers all continents, and the claim about it being "most prominent in North America, Europe and Japan" shouldn't be there even going by the comment visible in the edit window ("According to Template:Infobox sport, this section is supposed to list ALL geographic areas the sport is present in the broadest possible terms"; my emphasis), and should thus be removed ASAP. Which would solve the problem... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Correct, this is what I advocated for before but did not out of an abundance of caution. I'll go ahead and do so. Toa Nidhiki05 18:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Harrassment by an editor

I am starting this ANI because for some time now I have felt harrassed by another editor, @Tvx1. Things have recently come to a head and I feel that the time is nigh for some kind of administrator involvement. I would like to spell out the nature and extent of his behaviour and also provide what I think is an appropriate course of action. Before I begin, please note that I fully acknowledge that I am no angel in some of these situations, but based on my interactions with other users, I often feel that Tvx1 deliberately tries to instigate conflict.

The nature of my complaint

My complaint centres primarily on what I feel is Tvx1's abuse of the ANI procedure. He has, on several instances, taken me to task at ANI with the clear intention of having some kind of administrator interaction. Each of these usually follow some kind of ongoing debate on an article talk page where I have not yielded to him. Some of the diffs that I will be using for this will go back some time, but I believe that these demonstrate the full extent of his behaviour. Examples of this include:

• Directly lobbying to admins to review ANI cases involving me, particularly when he feels that they are not progressing fast enough or are not progressing to his liking.
• Digging up ANI archives that were over a year old and presenting them as evidence of current misbehaviour. When taken in isolation, some of these are questionable as to whether they are actually evidence of what Tvx1 claims them to be, but when combined with others, may have more weight.
• Selectively reporting who he reports to ANI. In this instance, I had reverted the edits of a user who I felt was being deliberately disruptive after they insisted that edits be made to other pages before the article in question. Tvx1 claimed to have used his judgement to decided that the editor had done nothing wrong, but refused to acknowledge that I could use my judgement to assess the situation.
• Trying to get me blocked for edit-warring on a high-traffic page which he had no prior involvement with (so he had to be monitoring my contributions); the admin closed the report because the page was high-traffic and so could not justifiably be called edit-warring. Tvx1 was not happy with this and appealed directly to the admin to try and re-open the ANI report after the admin had closed it without going through the ANI procedures.

During this time, other, uninvolved editors have pointed out his behaviour as he clearly wants me blocked. Tvx1 claims to be upholding Wikipedia policies and to be driven by a desire to act in the interests of the articles, but he rarely reports other editors to ANI even when there are issues clearly worthy of admin attention.

Tvx1 has a habit of misrepresenting things in discussions. During a recent (now closed) DRN, I pointed out the existence of a previous discussion (albeit eighteen months old) and an editor who had agreed with me on the subject. Tvx1, however, claimed that "all but one" editor in the most recent discussion had supported him. I felt that this was a blatant misrepresentation of the situation because Tvx1 repeatedly failed to acknowledge the existence of the previous discussion or the editor who had agreed with me, even after it had been pointed out. I felt that all he had to do was say something to the effect of "sorry, I forgot about that discussion because it is a bit old", but he pointedly refused to. I can think of no reason as to why he would do this unless he wanted to continue to claim that it was a one-against-many situation. This is but one example of what I feel is Tvx1's blatant attempts to misrepresent things.

Furthermore, Tvx1 has a disturbing habit of monitoring my contributions page. On several instances he has acted or responded to things that I have done even when I have taken pains not to involve him. This aforementioned ANI report was made based on edits to an article that Tvx1 had not previously been invovled with. When I approached @Fastily to discuss whether or not I had a case to discuss at ANI (as I noticed Fastily had previously commented on Tvx1's talk page about similar issues), Tvx1 approached @EdJohnston to comment on my approaching Fastily. I had taken pains not to tag Tvx1 in my comment to Fastily because I did not want him to be aware that I was discussing his behaviour with an admin (and also because I suspected that Tvx1 was monitoring my contributions page). Considering the post that made, I feel that he is trying to pre-emptively address this ANI by getting an admin on his side.

I have from time to time raised these issues, but mostly in the context of responding to ANI. I have never put them all together in the one place before. Tvx1's response has usually been to deny wrongdoing, claim that he is being targeted with bad-faith accusations, extensive wikilaywering and trying to shift the focus of the discussion to someone other than him, all of which are patterns of behaviour that can be found throughout his editing history. Given the content of his post on EdJohnston's talk page, where he claims that I have "painted a false image of [him]", and suggesting that an administrator I approached for advice "unfortunately apparently still has an overly negative impression of me [...] judging by their replies seems to fully believe it", I expect a similar defence from Tvx1 when he posts here. I stress that I had never heard of Fastily until I went looking for diffs from Tvx1's edit history for this ANI. I only approached Fastily because I noticed that he had previously blocked Tvx1 for reasons similar to my concerns (for example, I had never even heard of wikilawyering until I read Fastily's post).

What I propose as a solution

My solution to this is two-fold. First of all, I would like an interaction ban put in place. I am quite happy for this to be a two-way interaction ban; that is, I have nothing to do with Tvx1 and Tvx1 has nothing to do with me. However, I am not willing to agree to a one-way interaction ban where I am banned from interacting with Tvx1 as Tvx1 is the editor who has been harrassing me.

Secondly, I would like to suggest a topic ban or at least an article ban. Looking at Tvx1's contributions reveals an unusual pattern. Like many editors, he has many topics that he is interested in. For example, Formula 1 racing the UEFA Europa League, and tennis. And as with editors with many interests, he often edits many pages within the scope of that interest. In addition to the Wimbeldon article, he has edited pages on Roger Federer, Simona Halep and the US Open, among others. And this is where the unusual pattern emerges—his contributions to rallying articles are much more limited. So limited, in fact, that he only edits one part of one article (such as 2019 World Rally Championship) at a time. He does not contribute any content. He does not correct errors on the page. He does not contribute to any related articles (such as drivers, teams, cars or events). His only focus when it comes to rallying articles is World Rally Championship season articles is specific sections of the current season article—usually forming and implementing a consensus. And the one thing that he has in common with each of those consensus discussions is that he opposes me in them. Tvx1 is well aware that I have a vision for these articles. A lot of the conventions of those articles are conventions that I developed, and I am quite proud of them; I also have more ideas that I would like to implement. I am certainly not claiming to own these articles, merely highlight that I have a heightened interest in them (see for instance Volkswagen Polo R WRC, which I got to GA status almost single-handedly). Based no his edit history and his unusual pattern of editing on WRC season pages, I believe that his actions constitute a further form of harrassment, deliberately trying to prevent me from forming a consensus. It is worth noting that his attitude in these discussions is hardly productive; whatever points that he raises are offset by his dismissive attitude, claiming that my concerns are "all in my head". Forming a consensus with Tvx1 often amounts to two sides emerging very quickly, then retreating to their respective corners and repeating their arguments over and over again ad infinitum until one side gives up and Tvx1 gets a consensus by forefeit. If one person should persuade another to change their mind, Tvx1 interprets that as being unreliable and therefore marginalises them. Once he feels that he has enough support, I feel that he shuts down entirely, waiting for the other side to give up because he does not need to address issues so long as he has the numbers. He turns the discussion into a battleground and I know of several editors who have quit Formula 1 articles in frustration. When he does not get his way, he finds a reason to go to ANI and report me. To his credit his most recent contribution to a discussion is actually a very good one because it addresses specific concerns, offers points for further discussion and it something that newcomers to the conversation can engage in.

Therefore, in addition to an IBAN, I would like to suggest that Tvx1 be banned from editing articles on the topic of rallying, or at the very least banned from editing WRC season articles until such time as he can demonstrate a sustained commitment to editing rallying-related articles in the way he does Formula 1, UEFA Europa League and tennis articles. If Tvx1 has an equivalent article or topic that he would like me to be banned from editing, then I am quite happy to negotiate that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I cannot reply which much more to these accusations than that Mclarenfan17 ((who originally contributed to Wikipedia as Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and in between changing accounts as an IP) has massively overreacted to what really is a minor issue. The basic facts are that we disagree on content. On the article in question I made exactly two edits to the article in question over the last week. I made the first one in good faith when I felt the discussion had run its course and there was a clear support for the proposal. This was escalated to DRN which was not used by Mclarenfan17 to discuss the content, like that venue request, but merely to criticize my contributions. They even tried to game the system by approaching the DRN volunteer directly to try to poison them against me. The DRN volunteer Robert McClenon subsequently closed the DRN thread. I then made the second edit to the article in good faith because I felt the DRN had closed without new agreement with Mclarenfan17. Following that I left the article alone and focussed solely on the article's talk page. Following that, Mclarenfan17 approached the specific administrator (an action I find particularly concerning) of whom they clearly know I was recently indef blocked by, and with whom I unfortunately have a very poor reputation which I seem unable to shed, and escalated this to ANI here.

I fully believe this is an unnecessary overreaction. I fully believe that we can still find an amicable conclusion to this. They accuse me of misrepresenting the situation by refusing to acknowledge that an older discussion on the topic exists. That is simply not true. I referenced it here (I do apologize for the strong words I used there) in the discussion on Robert McClenon's talk page and addressed it again on the article's talk page. Mclarenfan17 and I merely disagree on the effect the older discussion has as whole. They consider it leading and I strong reason that there is little merit in discussing the subject any further, I felt that the second discussion was a fresh start under the principle that consensus can change. The actually impact lies probably somewhere in the middle. That is an issue that could perfectly have been resolved though at WP:DRN. Thus is strongly believe that we can resolve this content dispute to mutual satisfaction. There a couple of options we haven't even considered (e.g. RFC) but it is even possible that this can be resolved by something as simple as asking an uninvolved person to come to assess the discussion.

Therefore I fully believe that we can still resolve this content dispute collaboratively and that this does not need to be escalated to a IBAN and or topic ban. I would be very difficult for me to agree to a two-way IBAN because that would effectively lock me out of the topics I most actively contribute to. I would have no problem to respect a topic ban on rallying if that is deemed really necessary, but in that case I would suggest Mclarenfan17 is subjected to a topic ban on Formula One and its feeder series broadly construed. My greatest concern though is that even if I am subjected to the proposed restrictions regarding rallying, it would only affect this case directly but would not solve the greater problems at that WikiProject. The thing is, I'm not by far the only person McLarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys has clashed heads with over a content dispute at WT:Rally. Other users like Klõps[134][135], Pelmeen10[136][137], Pyrope [138] among others. Two of those users have even been reported at ANI by Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys:12. Thus it clearly doesn't take me at all for a rather hostile discussion involving Prisonermonkeys/Mclarenfan17 to emerge regarding rallying.

I cannot stress enough that I hold no personal grudge whatsoever against this user. Over my over six and a halve years history I have actually agreed with this user just as much as I disagreed with them. If they genuinely felt harassed, I sincerely apologize for that as I had not intentions whatsoever in that direction. I sincerely believe that we can resolve the content dispute at hand in an amicable manner.Tvx1 15:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of response that I was expecting from Tvx1. His strategy is obvious: deny any wrongdoing, and try to turn the admin attention back on me. He claims that this is an over-reaction on my part and the product of a single recent disagreement despite the fact that I have been dealing with this behaviour for years. He then drags as many unrelated editors into the discussion as possible. This issue has nothing to do with any other editor but him and myself; tagging the other editors is merely a tactic for distraction and hoping that they will advocate for him. It doesn't matter what other editors think of Tvx1 because they're not being harrassed. He won't even accept responsibility for his actions—he says "if they genuinely felt harrassed", which is both conditional ("if") and clearly implies a lack of sincerity ("genuinely"). Despite claiming to have done nothing wrong, his counter-proposal of "a topic ban on Formula One and its feeder series broadly construed" is yet another example of harrassing behaviour, since Tvx1 does not edit Formula 1 feeder series articles (such as F2 2019 and F3 2019). There is no reason for me to be blocked from editing those articles. A TBAN on Formula 1 articles is disproportionate to the TBAN or ABAN that I am suggesting (I would be banned from editing thousands of articles whereas Tvx1 would be banned from editing hundreds); a TBAN on F1, F2 and F3 is completely ridiculous. As for his suggestion of two weeks, I was thinking more along the lines of two months. Or two years. Or better yet, forever.

As I said in my introduction, this is not the first time I have complained about Tvx1's behaviour—it's just the first time I have brought those complaints together into one place. His pattern of behaviour is ongoing, and he has previously been blocked and warned about this behaviour by admins for incidents unrelated to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not mentioned any time-frame regarding the proposed bans im my comment.Tvx1 21:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. I did write it at three in the morning, though. Still, I would prefer it if the IBAN and/or ABAN/TBAN was for am extended period. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment My views on based on rallying/WRC articles only. As I'm not familiar with others. Basically we have only 4 active editors in that subject, 2 of them involved in this discussion. Don't ban/block Why? Because Mclarenfan17 himself is very hard (childish) person to discuss something. Afaik, he has never (or rarely) had an intention to achieve a consensus, rather than talk and repeat his first opinion. Some discussions are just wasting everybody's time, when everybody has already expressed their opinion and one user singlehandedly is blocking a consensus (which he sometimes accuses of others). I'm not assuming bad faith, very happy for his enthusiasm. But sometimes feel he lacks empathy - not a person who is up for a teamwork (which Wikipedia is all about!). And worst of all, Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys (or IP editor in between) is very eager to jump into editwarring, when things are not to his liking. Everybody can check the histories of 2019 World Rally Championship, 2018 World Rally Championship etc. But with Tvx1, I've never had any problems. I feel he is much more of a teamwork person. He takes more time to discuss, and often expresses things to McLarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys that I'm not able (my English vocabulary is just not that good). Anyway, this ban/block seems ridiculous proposal - just discuss and move on. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have no idea why you are in this discussion. It has nothing to do with you, and Tvx1 only tagged you to deflect attention away from himself. If you haven't had a problem with him, that's fine, but just wait until you have a disagreement with him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Walls of text are not likely to get action, from experience. 2001:4898:80E8:8:A2A8:1492:2DE5:4C33 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment / Oppose ban - I can see both sides of this. On one hand, I don’t think that User:Tvx1 has deliberately attempted to antagonize the McLarenfan. I think that both users are operating in good faith and have made good contributions to the project. However, I found it somewhat disturbing that User:Tvx1 deliberately interrupted a private conversation between McLarenfan and the DRN volunteer Robert McClenon and literally ASKED to be reported to WP:ANI. In my opinion, this was poor judgment at best (see WP:BOOMERANG).

See diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=next&oldid=907923878

I don’t think that a topic ban for both would be fair though — for one, it would mean that eminently qualified and constructive users would lose the ability to contribute meaningfully to an underserved topics. It would be especially tragic to lose the contributions of User:Mclarenfan17, who had added a lot to the topic and has single handedly improved multiple articles in this area.

My preferred resolution is that both users submit themselves to community sanctions in be areas of civility, and mutual respect, and discussions, including a voluntary adherence to the 1RR and a commitment to work with a mediator for any future content disputes. The interaction ban should exclude talk pages for articles, but they should also commit to avoid provoking or baiting each other as was done during the DRN.

This would be a mature and respectful way to close out this dispute and create a path forward for a harmonious resolution. Thoughts? Michepman (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Michepman, I’m willing commit to your proposals.Tvx1 21:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Michepman — I am afraid that does not go far enough. Tvx1 has been repeatedly warned about and even indefinitely banned for this kind of behaviour (before talking his way out of it) in the recent past. One admin even suggested a limit on how much of the admins' time he should be allowed to take up. When filing ANI reports, he often insists that the subject (me) should be held accoubtable for their behaviour, but here he is refusing to accept responsibility. As you pointed out, he interrupted a private converastion (which he should have had no idea about unless he was monitoring my contributions) and asked for an ANI to be started; then, once that ANI was started, he tried to use that same conversation he interrupted as proof of my doing something wrong, all while trying to claim that he was innocent. Meanwhile, he had discovered another private conversation of mine and approached another admin separately about it, which arguably poisons the well, the very thing he accused me of doing. It's harrassment, it's mistepresentation and it's wikilawyering, the very things he was blocked for. His "[willingness] to commit to your proposals" means nothing when he cannot even acknowledge his own behaviour and instead makes his apology conditional while implying my feeling of bring harrassed to be an overreaction on my part.

Given the warnings and ban he has received and his insistence that editors be held accountable for their actions, a one-way IBAN and an ABAN or TBAN would be getting off lightly, in my opinion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't had time to review the content or the details of the conduct, due to a combination of real-world problems and other Wikipedia issues. I will say that I found both parties to be bellicose, and both wanted to treat a conduct-content dispute as a conduct dispute. Neither of them was trying to settle the matter peacefully, and neither was trying to be constructive at DRN. There is a content dispute waiting to get out from the conduct dispute, but it is likely to be stillborn due to birth injuries in getting it out. Both parties have behaved badly, and the sanctions should be two-sided. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon — in that case, could I please ask that you do read the entire post? You will see that the DRN only constitutes a tiny fraction of my complaint against Tvx1. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Robert McClenon, I have no problem to admit that I did not behave in the best way during that DRN and I didn't really help the situation. I apologize for that. I do maintain however that I'm fully convinced that we can resolve the content dispute. The content disagreements we have are entirely of the kind that we should be able to resolve through a DRN process. I made a comment during the failed DRN to iterate that I was fully willing to continue discussing the content. I did not intend for that comment to mean that I didn't want to participate any further at all, but simply as a request for the comments against the contributors to stop. If it came across differently, I apologize for that.Tvx1 15:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears that one editor, User:Tvx1, apologizes for their past conduct and is willing to discuss content. The other, User:Mclarenfan17, wants me to read their Too long to read statement first. I won't be working on this dispute anyway, but I don't think that another volunteer is likely to be able to resolve the content as it is, with one editor demanding that conduct be addressed. I don't plan to be involved further. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"I do maintain however that I'm fully convinced that we can resolve the content dispute."

It's quite clear that you are trying to frame this ANI as a response to the DRN. The fact that you have only addressed the DRN and ignored everything else—the harrassment, the wikilawyering, the misrepresentation, the way you monitor user contributions and interrupt private conversations, the abuse of ANI to settle grudges, the BATTLEGROUND behaviour, the warning and previous block for such behaviour—is yet another case of misrepresentation as you try to avoid being held accountable for your behaviour ... and yet, every time you go to ANI, you insist that you just want people to be held accountable for their behaviour.

"It appears that one editor, User:Tvx1, apologizes for their past conduct

And he was apologetic when he was blocked for a similar pattern of behaviour one month ago.

"The other, User:Mclarenfan17, wants me to read their Too long to read statement first."

I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for you, but I felt it necessary to document as sustained pattern of misconduct, one that has been going on for at least eighteen months now. As I said, Tvx1's behaviour in the DRN only represents a small fraction of my complaint. I hardly think it's fair that you should take one editor's word for it that he is sincere when you refuse to even look at the post demonstrating the litany of behaviours being discussed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

What private conversation? On my talk page? You did not ask for privacy, I did not agree to privacy, and you were out of line in trying to have a side conversation. If you had wanted privacy, Email This User works. You do have a right to ask that someone read your wall of text, but you have no reason to expect that I will read your complaint. I didn't say that he was sincere. I said that he apologized and you didn't. He may be wrong, but you are wrong. That is that. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"I didn't say that he was sincere. I said that he apologized and you didn't. He may be wrong, but you are wrong. That is that."

Well, I guess I should have read your post. But I didn't because it was too long. Instead, I just assumed that I knew what it was about and leaped into the fray and started swinging an opinion about with reckless abandon. Is it any wonder that I ended up stabbing myself in the foot? That feeling of annoyance you have is exactly what I felt when you said "tl;dr"—internet-speak for "I couldn't be bothered"—but still saw fit to pass an opinion on it.

Sure, Tvx1 apologises for his past behaviour, but so what? He's apologised in the past, only to turn around and keep doing the very thing he just apologised for. He only apologised for his behaviour in the DRN when this ANI is about so much more than that. It's about:

• His habit of using ANI to try and get people he disagrees with blocked.
• His harrassing behaviour, including monitoring the contributions of editors for the purposes of opposing them.
• His tendency to misrepresent things (including policy) in consensus debates and ANI proceedings.
• His edit history, which shows a clear personal agenda to his pattern of edits that is not in the interests of the article.
• His hipocricy in claiming he only wants editors to be held accountable for their behaviour, all while refusing to acknowledge (much less address) his own behaviour.

Should a simple apology and promise to try harder in future be enough to excuse that? Given that he has been warned about it, blocked for it and other editors have called him out over it, I don't think an apology goes far enough. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems you are trying to make yourself the victim here. Though several people mentioned the actions should be towards both of you. Your previous account has been blocked several times for edit warring. Tvx1 has apologized and understood what he has done wrong. What about you? Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't abuse ANI to punish people I agree with. I don't monitor the contributions of other editors. I don't mistepresent people, policy or topics. I don't let a personal agenda influence my editing behaviour. And I'm not a hypocrite, demanding people be held accountable for their behaviour whilst dodging accountability for my own. Even if I did, an apology would not be enough to make up for it—and it should not be enough for Tvx1. This is all moot, though, because he has only apologised for his behaviour in the DRN; he hasn't even acknowledged the rest of it. Hedeserves an outright block for his actions, but I'll settle for an IBAN and a TBAN or ABAN. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Mclarenfan17 either is complaining that my post was long, when it was much shorter than theirs, or is complaining about users without being clear who. I will note that Mclarenfan17 is the only one who is suggesting that they are innocent and User:Tvx1 is at fault. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon — once again, this is not about the DRN. It came about because of the DRN (after you advised me to come to ANI), but the DRN itself only plays a very small part in my complaint about Tvx1. My complaint is about a string of worrying behaviours that he has demonstrated over the past eighteen months or more. I have been clear as to who I am complaining about and why since the beginning, complete with diffs that demonstrate his behaviour. I have repeatedly pointed this out to you, but you have refused to even acknowledge it because it was "too long" for you to read—and you have refused to address it even after I made it clear that my post puts Tvx1's behaviour in a different context. Is an apology for what happened in the DRN going to be what it takes to get you to read the opening post? If it is, then please say so and I will freely give it. But right now all you are doing is giving a free pass to an editor with a documented history of bullying and harrassing behaviour because he made one apology for one incident. And that's before you consider the way he has previously apologised for behaviour, only to turn around and keep doing it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this discussion's for the birds-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Please review this user's edit to Talk:Common Era#British Museums and BC/BCE (diff=909437446&oldid=909428172). Nothing justifies bullying words like "egocentric loon".

The administrator may wish to review both our edits to Common Era in the last 24 hours, notably the lack to response to my wp:BRD request and wp:SYN edits.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style issues - I think deleting "reasons specific to the article" is a mistake for this subject may also be relevant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No he should not have said that. However, you should also not have said "you are giving the appearance of POV pushing and wp:nothere." We're not going to get out an "NPA balance" to weigh the egregiousness of each. I would recommend to both of you to never do things like that again. Instead, comment on the content of the article, not the person contributing. Accusing someone of "POV pushing" is no less a personal attack than calling someone a "loon", no matter how much you hedge your attack using qualifiers like "giving the appearance" and the like. He should not have called you a loon. That was wrong. But neither should you have accused him of POV pushing. --Jayron32 18:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Since "Loons are excellent swimmers, using their feet to propel themselves above and under water" this may, indeed, have been a compliment. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Wot Jayron said.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all, for these wise comments. I have removed the words that gave offence. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:STONEWALLING and WP:IDONTHEARYOU by User:Paul Siebert at Talk:Pontius Pilate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion at Talk:Pontius Pilate#Recent Changes as well as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PhD thesis in Theology a reliable source for the claim about authenticity of Tacitus fragment? to advance the fringe Jesus myth theory. Despite repeatedly being told that he is advancing a fringe theory by everyone else involved and being asked to stop, Paul Siebert continues to WP:STONEWALL and dismiss mainstream scholarship as "Christian" (see e.g. [[139]]). He has now at least twice said he would stop discussing/announced an end to the discussion [140] [141], and yet continues to post making the exact same arguments [142], [143], [144]. He has also already been given a warning by User:Doug Weller, to which he has responded with wikilawyering: [145], [146], [147]. He is currently threatening to rewrite all our Jesus/Christianity related articles on the basis of his own personal POV, as can be seen from the various diffs above. I suspect he will soon be making the same arguments over here as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I would also add that he accuses other people of being Christian, and spreading "religious propaganda". To anybody clicking on the links above, there is a huge wall of text, you've been warned (lol). T8612 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a diff on at least one of the religious propaganda accusations he's made [148].--Ermenrich (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Below are the comments on each accusation separately.

• "Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion." False. I already proposed to stop this discussion and Ermenrich is aware of that fact. That means no admin action is needed, because the actions are supposed to be preventive not punitive.
• "...as well as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PhD thesis in Theology a reliable source for the claim about authenticity of Tacitus fragment?". Is anything wrong with asking a question at RSN???
• "...to advance the fringe Jesus myth theory. The fact that the current version of the article calls it fringe does not make it fringe. I am going to collect more data on that account, and then I'll decide if that article needs a major rewrite.
• "...continues to post making the exact same arguments." That is an important point. Ermenrich claims I am not familiar with sources and my sources are fringe. Ermenrich presented three sources to support that claim. I provided the analysis demonstrating that all those sources fully support what I am saying, and one of them is even citing my source (which refuted Ermenrich's allegation I am using fringe sources). This diff is a summary of the dispute (read ## 1-3). Ermenrich does not respond to this argument and continues the allegations of pushing fringe theories. Obviously, I am expecting to see a response, so it is normal that I am asking it again. I have to say I have never had such a low level talk page discussion during my wikilife.
• "He has also already been given a warning by User:Doug Weller" - I believe User:Doug Weller can voice their opinion themselves if they believe there are still some unresolved problems.
• "wikilawyering" Again, let User:Doug Weller comment on that.
• "He is currently threatening to rewrite all our Jesus/Christianity related articles..." Since Ermenrich seems to have forgotten to attach the diff, here it is. As you can see I express a legitimate concern that some sources may be incorrectly interpreted in Christianity related articles, so I need to read them more closely and make changes if necessary. If that activity is punishable according to our policy, then Wikipedia is not the place I want to be :). Ermenrich's "our Jesus/Christianity related articles" is especially interesting: should I interpret it as a collective ownership claim?
• "... accuses other people of being Christian". Being Christian is not a crime, so I don't see how can it be interpreted as an accusation.
• "religious propaganda" Is Wikipedia a secular encyclopedia, and can religious ideas be presented (as a statement of facts, not as a subject of discussion) outside of the articles specifically devoted to that?

In summary, I think this report is frivolous. I don't insist on WP:BOOMERANG, however, a warning should be issued to Ermenrich.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think many editors would agree that challenging (RS or DUEness) theology studies sources (of any religion - including Christian) being used for sourcing the historicity of religious figures... Is sound editing.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz, The issue is not that he asked, but that it was part his WP:OR strategy to use the Tacitus passage's disputed status to argue that Jesus didn't exist- never providing a source that said that one depended on the other.

in fact, he was challenging its use in the article talk page rather than in the article, on the mistaken impression I was arguing with him about it.Ermenrich (talk)

The source saying that has been provided ... by you. See a statement in bold ("The only source for this event is a brief passage in the historian Tacitus.") --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You linked to it in your first post [149], clearly without knowing what was in it. He's been doing this a lot, I think it probably counts as WP:GASLIGHTING.

Ah, misinterpreted what he said. The source says that the only source for the Neronian persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome is this passage in Tacitus, it says nothing about the existence of Jesus. But that's really neither here nor there. It's a pretty good example of his use of WP:OR though; he's using sources on Tacitus to make his own conclusion that Jesus didn't exist.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Had you answered this my question two days ago, we would probably avoided this incident. I've read your source in full, and I agree that you were right regarding Nero and Christians; however, since you provided this source as a support for the claim about historicity of Jesus, I thought the author was talking both about Christians and Jesus. Anyway, this your source does not support your thesis, because it clearly says Tacitus wrote this passage based on rumors about Christ that already had wide circulation in 110-120. Tacitus was wrong even about Rome fire (which happened in Rome 30 years after Jesus alleged death), and it is highly unlikely he had any first hand account on the events in Judea in 33 AD. However, all of that hardly belongs to ANI.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Look who's still not participating in this discussion! As I've said elsewhere, only you were arguing about whether Tacitus supported the historicity of Jesus. I simply quoted the source that you (again [150]) introduced into the discussion for how we should organize the article not to discuss "Christian mythology" to show that it didn't support your opinion and it happened to mention Tacitus.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are right, this source was initially proposed by me. I think now you realise how important is to explain your point of view: had you pointed at this my mistake earlier, that would save a lot of time. Anyway, two other sources still exist, and they were found not by me. Regarding Tacitus as the only source, listen, it is a common knowledge that Tacitus and Josephus are the two sources the whole concept of historicity of Jesus rests upon. What do your sources tell about other early non-Christian sources? Can you name at least one?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Being Christian is not a crime, so I don't see how can it be interpreted as an accusation."

This is this either demonstrates an incredibly poor understanding of the English language, an attempt at gaslighting or a mockery their fellow editors. Claiming an editor holds a faith which they do not in an attempt to discredit their opinions is incredibly offensive and bad faith, and in that it is an accusation as used as a layman term.★Trekker (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. Doesn't holding a faith that Jesus really existed mean being a Christian? I write "faith" because it is based on just two small passages from Josephus and Tacitus, which are widely recognised anachronisms or later additions. No other evidences (if we do not consider the Gospels reliable) prove Jesus existence, so we have absolutely no ground to claim Jesus ever existed. Therefore, everybody who believes Jesus (the God or just a human) really existed is, to some degree, a Christian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No. You have to believe in the divinity of Jesus. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. But I think you agree that if the discussion moves to the question on who can be considered Christian, it definitely does not belong to ANI?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not remotly a "maybe". Muslims also belive Jesus existed but not that he was devine.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been vaguely watching this discussion balloon from afar: one note in re Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion: since his starting the discussion here to the time of my writing here, more than 70,000 bytes have been added to the page by all parties, including by my count 82 edits by Paul Siebert totaling a net +18,286 bytes. A couple of thousand bytes were after the edit Paul points to above as I already proposed to stop this discussion [151]. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I also note that Paul Siebert takes Errmenrich to task for using the phrase "our articles", suggesting that it's a form of ownership, and yet in the same comment uses the phrase "our policy". Clearly he understands the idiomatic use of "our" meaning "Wikipedia's", as he uses it himself! Not impressive. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"A couple of thousand bytes" is a different discussion with another user who claims we have no reason to speak about WP:OWN.

Regarding "our", although I have already been accused of poor understanding of the English language, I believe I can feel a difference between the statement "he is going to change our articles" (which implies some contraposition) and "our (i.e. both yours and mine) policy says..." (which has no such implications).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No there really isn't any difference unless you're really trying to find one very hard to try to justify what you're doing.★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Considering I've never edited any of the Jesus articles, historical or otherwise, that's a pretty weak argument.

I'd also like to note that Paul used this same tactic of claiming to have stopped discussing one thing but continuing to argue "about something else" before in the discussion [152].--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is a big difference between you Ermenrich and me. You have reported me and request some action - I do not. And, by the way. I see no problem with stopping one discussion and starting another one: is it really not allowed by our rules? Please, don't make this report even more frivolous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

And here you are, continuing to discuss something else again I suppose?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any rule that prohibit me to discuss something else?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the discussion has come to a logical end, and I am not going to participate in it unless you present something outstanding (which is hardly possible).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What exacty about this looks like an "end" here?★Trekker (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"The end" means there is nothing here that belongs to ANI (except, probably, the fact that the report is frivolous). Good luck. If you have other questions, please, post them on my talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well once again you're wrong. About pretty much everything on topic.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• As noted above, Paul Siebert was given a final warning by Doug Weller, and has nonetheless continued with IDHT, bludgeoning, and making bad faith accusations of being "Christian" to editors, which (a) is not really a valid Conflict of Interest if the sources are followed, and (b) is based on poor logic, since the existence of the historical Jesus is generally not controversial amongst historians of any faith. You need to learn to work with your fellow editors, stop trying to insert your own interpretation of sources to get different results from mainstream historians, and also accept consensus, otherwise sanctions will follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are inaccurate. Doug Weller explicitly specified his warning was not a final warning. Second, regarding "continued with IDHT", you should have noticed that even before Doug's interference I realised continuation of of the discussion was senseless (at least, until I read more), and I am just commenting on what other people say. Thus, a recent exchange with Ermenrich on this talk page or with Treker are responses to their posts.

Third, calling anyone "Christian" is by no mean accusation, although it may be inaccurate. Regarding "sources are followed", there is a question of due weight: my opponents dismiss my sources (without providing any evidences), whereas I accept their sources, just propose to re-organise the article's structure for a sake of logical consistency.

"stop trying to insert your own interpretation of sources". Our WP:NFCC rules do not allow us to copy large pieces from sources, so we all have to insert our own interpretations. In that sense, I see no difference between me and other users. To blame me in inserting my interpretation of sources is tantamount to blaming me in editing Wikipedia. If my interpretation is wrong, prove it by presenting quotes and arguments.

Again, consensus is not a vote: when people say "you are not right, because the source you are citing is fringe (according to ref X)", or "you are not right because the source actually says Y", I usually accept that. The problem is no such arguments were presented in this discussion.

I am editing a number of highly controversial articles, and I never faced so low level discussion before. Don't you think the problem may be on the other side?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that someone is of a faith they are not to try to diminish their opinin is insulting and an accusation. Stop trying to gaslight.★Trekker (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a politecorrect place, and it is quite ok to make a guess about someone's faith. Per WP:DUCK, if someone's posts look like they were made by a Christian, it is natural to propose this person is a Christian. You may accuse me of insultin someone only if I knew in advance a person was not Christian. Nevertheless, I agree that was impolite; as impolite as calling me fringe theorist or POV-pusher. In future, I will avoid this type rhetoric, and I expect you to avoid yours. Ok?--Paul Siebert (talk)

This is laughable. If you think I'm a Christian you couldn't recognize an actual Christian if it bit you in the ass.★Trekker (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt ANI is a good place for discussing that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong again. This is exactly the place to bring it up since your constant bad faith assumptions is one of the main reasons no one has sympathy for you. Do you honestly think this is going to lead anywhere but you getting told to knock it off?★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, provide a single rational argument. All what you are saying is not possible to discuss, you just say "I don't like your fringe theories", but you never explained why you believe they are fringe. When arguments are so irrational, that creates an impression (ok, a wrong impression) that I am dealing with a deeply indoctrinated religious person. Since you claimed you are not such a person, then behave accordingly: give me rational arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, we have to do a degree of interpretation, in selecting sources, but that's all the more reason why consensus, and following the findings of secondary/tertiary sources rather than primary ones, is so important in maintaining a neutral point of view. Your arguments are not neutral since they go against the mainstream scholarly view that Jesus was a historical figure. And nobody but you is arguing for that point of view. You could conside starting an RFC, or using some of the techniques suggested at WP:Dispute resolution, if you genuinely think there is some aspect of this that a wider audience might interpret different from the other editors in the discussion. But continuing to argue the same point over and over in different venues, and casting aspersions against other users by suggesting they have a faith-based conflict of interest, is an unacceptable way to continue the debate. I have struck the "final" part about Doug's warning, thanks for correcting me on that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

First, the whole conflict lasts just a couple of days, so I just have no time to think about RfC or something of that kind. Second, the visibly high number of my opponents is deceptive: actually only few of them presented any addressable arguments. I believe you must agree that "You are totally wrong" or "stop POV-pushing" are not the arguments: usually, I expect to see something more serious. Maybe, my repeating questions were the attempt to force people to present something more concrete? I noticed Ermenrich started to explain their position more clearly (on this page), which is already a progress. I hope that will help us to find an exit from an impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again you ignore one of the main issues, which is that each time someone made a claim you disagreed on you simply deflected by claiming that "only Christians think that". Which is bad faith to say the least.★Trekker (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Each time?" Are you sure? In addition, let me remind you that the whole conflict started because you two accused me of pushing fringe theory, despite the fact that I was presenting top quality modern reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There it is again, acting like you don't grasp figurative language. And no, this issue was started because you kept insisting on forcing fringe theories.★Trekker (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, provide a single evidence (a quote from a reliable modern peer-reviewed scholarly source) saying the theory I am advocating is fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

We are under no more obligation to refute you here than if you claimed the moon landing was fake or the holocaust didn't happen. We've pointed you to sources several times by linking to Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory and you each time simply claim Christian bias and "religious propaganda". Every single person who has commented has said that it is mainstream among historians that Jesus existed.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks like a content dispute. But when I looked more closely, there is something very deeply disruptive going on. Paul Siebert argues that anyone who believes that some guy named Yeshua or something similar was an actual dissident Jewish teacher in and around Nazareth 2000 years ago is a Christian, whether or not they worship him, consider him divine, call him Messiah and Savior, or reject him. Even third generation atheists like *Treker who might possibly believe this guy really lived are actually Christians, in Paul's thinking. Even Jews who denounce him as a false Messiah are actually Christians, if they believe he really lived. All Muslims must be hidden Christians in Paul's analysis. So, Paul espouses a bizarre and highly idiosyncratic definition of who is or isn't a Christian. In order to claim to be "not Christian" in Siebert's worldview, a person must vigorously deny that Jesus ever existed. Siebert also argues that Christian sources are not reliable when when evaluating the historicity of Jesus. By redefining who is a Christian, Siebert's thinking leads to the logical conclusion that only those few fringe sources who vigorously deny that Jesus ever lived are acceptable in these articles. That's a highly disruptive line of thinking when it is advanced so tenaciously and at such great length. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cullen³²⁸ See my comment below: a reliable source I cite on the talk page directly says that many scholars who study Christ [share similar goals and perspectives with believers. Obviously, the same relates to the users who shares the views of those scholars. Therefore, my allegedly "bizarre" statement almost literally reproduces what a top quality reliable source says, which means it is properly sourced, and completely shatters your main argument. In general, the fact that I can work with sources and I do that very well is well documented: there is a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal saying that the user Paul Siebert uses a very professional approaches to identification of reliable sources. You can read it yourself here.

Furthermore, it seems that as a result of the hot discussion the main idea appeared to be lost: I never proposed to remove any information from the articles about Christ, my proposal was that the non-Christian historical sources should be clearly separated from what the Gospels say (in the same way many books present this information). This quite modest proposal caused such a vehement reaction that I got an impression I am dealing with devoted Christians (and the article cited below reinforced this my belief).

I am not responsible for the ideas that I didn't express someone put in my mouths (to separate different type sources into different sections and to weed out some sources are two totally different ideas, aren't they?), and I expect you to carefully read the discussion in full before posting your opinion. A good analysis is provided by Lurking shadow below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ermenrich That is absolutely not the case: you are not supposed to refute me, you are supposed to prove you are right. Redirecting me to other Wikipedia articles is a kind of disrespect ("I-am-too-lazy-to-bother-explainng-my-viewpoint-read-it-yourself"). Claiming that the sources I am presenting are fringe is even a worse disrespect, especially taking into account that the sources your own sources cite the article presented by me as a trustworthy and mainstream view. A normal argument should be built like "Your claim is fringe because the author X and the author Y say that. The authors Y&X are renown scholars because their works are widely cited and are published by ZZZ university press..." This type arguments are easy to address (either refute or accept), and I am sure that the discussion organized in this way wouldn't lead to any conflict. That is how discussions on other talk pages are organized, and that is what I expected here. I am very disappointed. Your support of my topic ban is the more disappointing. This does not worries me. I cannot imagine how can a community topic ban a user who made not a singe contoaversial edits to the articles that fall into this topic, and who made no personal attack, and who even had no opportunity to start any RfC or mediation due to the short time that passed since the moment the conflict started. What is worrying me is the fact that people who study Christ seem to approach to Christian with assumptions shared by the believers, and also share similar goals and perspectives with believers. As you can see from this link, this is not my conclusion, this is the opinion published by Sage journal Studies in Religion. That means if you share the view of these scholars than that relates to you yourself. That means, accusations in promotion of Christian propaganda is not a personal attack, it is the conclusion made based on what a top quality reliable source say. It is very sad that a group of users who are currently working on some Christianity related articles share this view. I am afraid by starting this discussion I unadvertely opened a can of worms that may require a global arbitration. However, I am still believing we may come to some consensus that will save our time and efforts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not try to tell me or other editors what we are supposed to do here, Paul Siebert, because I will always do what I believe is best for the encylopedia, and as an administrator and experienced editor, I have concluded that you should no longer be editing these articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You probably noticed the "ec" template: that my comment was directed not to you. I didn't see your post when I was typing. My next comment is the answer to your post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Im replying down here so we dont fracture into so many small threads. Paul, the basis for your proposal at the article is your fringe view that anyone who says Jesus existed is a Christian and therefore too biased to count. No one has agreed with you on either editing the article as you wanted or in your basic premise, but you have simply repeated yourself over and over again. You're doing it even now. As I dont think you will stop, in fact you've said you're going to "examine the sources", no doubt in the same way you've been "examining" them until now, and "decide" whether to rewrite other Jesus articles. Of course I support a topic ban.--Ermenrich (talk)

Absolutely not. My proposal was just to rearrange the article's structure without removal of any content. Regarding my alleged statement about someone's Christianity, as I already explained above, that is just an slight extension of the idea published is a highly reliable mainstream source (the reference is provided above, if you doubt the source is reliable and non-fringe, ask a question at RSN).

Therefore, if you disagree with that, you can direct your objections to the author of this article. Anyway, since the discussion about someone's alleged Christianity was not aimed to lead to any changes in the article's content, I sincerely cannot understand why we are discussing it here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DE?

Since I have been accused of WP:DE, I've re-read that page to verify what is applicable to this case (not only to me). Below is my analysis:

WP:DAPE says that a user is engaged in DE when they

1. "...continues editing an article ..." I haven't edited this article for a very long time. Another party did (which is ok).
2. "... Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research." During the discussion I provided more sources than all other participants taken together. Another party failed to demonstrate that at least one my source is unsatisfactory.
3. "...Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging", etc" Not relevant to me, because I did no changes in the article space.
4. "Does not engage in consensus building:

"a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions..." I responded to virtually all questions (that is why the talk page discussion is that long. Another party did disregard my questions repeatedly.

"b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." Don't know. Maybe someone can provide an example?

1. "Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment," Since the start of the conflict I initiated an RSN discussion. Another party made a post at Christianity portal, so both parties are ok.
2. "Campaign to drive away productive contributors:" I obviously didn't, and what we have here is an attempt of another party to drive me (a productive contributor) away.

My conclusion is that we are dealing with some elements of DE, but the party engaged in it was not me. I am also grateful to Lurking shadow for a thoughtful analysis of the conflict. It may be helpful in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DE is by no means limited to article space. And you've cherry-picked sentences in the guideline while blatantly ignoring WP:IDHT. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I doubt IDHT is applicable to a discussion that lasted less than a week. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of moving houses and thus can't use my laptop to provide diffs, but its extremely disenguous of you to claim to have provided more sources than anyone else. As you were repeatedly told, the article content you wanted changed was sourced to RS and supported including the crucifixion in Pilate's life. You repeatedly dismissed these sources with accusations of Christian bias or misrepresenting Helen Bond as a theologian. You never produced a single source arguing the crucifixion wasn't a historical event in Pilate's life, you just argued about the off topic issue of whether Tacitus proves Jesus existed - at great length.--Ermenrich (talk)

We both were arguing about Tacitus, and that was not a topic I was going to discuss originally.

Regarding the number of sources, tust count the sources presented by you. I don't remember other participants presented anything significant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I was not arguing about Tacitus. I agreed that the section was likely a forgery, and that that was of little weight.★Trekker (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In general, I have a strong feeling that majority of the users who expressed their opinion built it not on what I wrote, but on what others wrote about me. Therefore, let me remind all of you that:

• In a separate post, I explained my position and explicitly wrote that the edits I propose do not imply any source will be removed, just rearranged to bring everything in system. I also specified that I object not to the content itself, but to the way it is presented.. Therefore, it would be correct if P Aculeius provided a diff that supports the claim" "he's not just arguing that the other editors are wrong, but that their opinions, all of the opinions of scholars who disagree with his position, and all of the evidence that weighs against his opinion are wrong, invalid, or inherently biased because they disagree." In addition, the P Aculeius's opinion seems to be based solely on the fact that I am intended to make edits that P Aculeius believes support a fringe position. The only proof that it is fringe is some WP article says, and, since Wikipedia is not a source for itself, this opinion is not supported. Simply, P Aculeius supports topic ban just because they do not like my viewpoint (without providing any sources or similar evidences). I am also disappointed that Amakuru finds this frivolous rationale convincing.
• I would like to see a diff that proves the Cullen³²⁸'s assertion about my "bizarre opinion that anyone who concludes that Jesus was a historical figure is therefore themself a Christian". I suggested to stop "Christian propaganda", and this my statement was based on what high quality peer-reviewed source says: it says that the researchers writing about Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers, and, again, that is not my assertion, that is a published fact. It is quite possible to spread (intentionally or non-intentionally) a Christian propaganda without being a Christian, which means the claim that everybody who disagrees with me is Christian does not follow from my words. That means Cullen's conclusion follows not from the words I wrote in reality, but from the interpretation of my words made by others.

In summary, I suggest everyone to make their conclusions based on the words I wrote, not on the interpretations made by others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You should probably stop repeating the same arguments that you're right here. This is not the place to relitigate whether or not the Jesus myth theory is fringe. Prior consensus clearly establishes that it is. You still can't drop the stick.--Ermenrich (talk)

"Prior consensus clearly establishes that it is" Please read WP:Consensus can change what to do and what not to do when there was prior consensus.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich, it seems you are not reading the posts you are commenting on: where did I mention Jesus myth theory in this thread? I would say it is you who are constantly returning to this subject. Regarding the "stick", my position has modified during the discussion, yours has not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The more I am reading the thread below the more I am asking myself: are my opponents reading my posts, or they are discussing some other Paul Siebert?

★Trekker's A, B & C sounds totally bizarre: one cannot request a ban for refusal to recognize historicity of Jesus. Whereas I, along with Lurking shadow, totally agree with B and C, your B and C have no relation to me: I never called anybody "Christian", as I explained in this section, I accused people of spreading Christian propaganda, which is absolutely not the same. That wording may be awkward, but that is essentially what a reliable source I presented says: "many scholars who study Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers". If you stick with what those scholars say you (inadvertently) share these goals and perspectives too, and that does not necessarily mean you are Christian. Therefore, taking into account that many people on this page uncritically reproduces this false accusation, I expect you ★Trekker to explicitly withdraw it, for I am not responsible for the words I never said. You should either provide a diff where I call anybody a Christian, or withdraw your B & C and apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

How about this [153]? I think it's clear from reading the thread that this is a conduct dispute that got heated, but that post is just gross. How are you supposed to read that as anything but accusing him of being a Christian (as if that would somehow negate his viewpoint)? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Pasta for all!-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

::What exactly do you find incorrect in that statement? I was accused of ignoring the arguments presented by others, and I responded that the person who throws this accusation ignores my own arguments despite my repeated requests to address them. What is wrong with that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You asked for an example of you calling someone a Christian. I think Can you remind me which of your beloved Gospels says "Physician, heal thyself"? is pretty clear-cut. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was addressing to a person who was vehemently advocating historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. Does it mean I called them Christian? If that is the case, than the statement a person X loves pasta immediately implies they are a Pastafarian.:-). Please, provide something more serious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen enough. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I just said I "do not" want for you to be banned or blocked. Why are you questioning if I read your comments when you're clearly not reading mine very well? I ask of you the minimum, to accept that your theory is simply considered a fringe theory among the majority of experts and can thus not be treated as anything but a fringe theory, and for you to stop assuming bad faith of people who don't agree with you on the topic. I don't want you to be banned even if you refuse to do those things, but I will think less of you as an editor if you can't conside that you have been wrong in accsing almost everyone who disagreed with you of being Christians.★Trekker (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I got confused: your B and C related to calling someone Christian, not to some fringe theory. Obviously, my words "your beloved Gospels", similar to "your beloved War and Piece" only imply you are a proponent of some idea (in this concrete case, the idea of historicity of the events described in the Gospels). That is why your accusations were absolutely groundless: when I say someone is spreading Christian propaganda or when I say "your beloved Gospels" that doesn't imply I am making a hypothesis about the faith.

Regarding that ostensibly fringe theory, as I already explained, I am going to read more on that, because I suspect the article misinterprets some sources, and some other sources are missing. If this my hypothesis is correct, I will edit it. However, since I don't know if I am right, I cannot tell in advance if I am going to do that.

By the way, my procedure of identification of reliable sources is transparent and neutral. I am saying that because a reliable source exists that says so about a user Paul Siebert (me). Therefore, everyone will see how I am finding sources, and in the case if someones believes my sources are fringe or cherry-picked, that will be easy to check and fix.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

no one has questioned whether you've made valuable contributions to other areas of the encyclopedia. But if you start advocating a fringe theory (and of course there is a tiny minority of scholars on the fringe who support it), you'll be being disruptive.--Ermenrich (talk)

You failed to demonstrate the theory was fringe. The only evidence was a Wikipedia article. Currently, I DO NOT KNOW if this theory is fringe, because I haven't read all sources I am planning to. It may be fringe and may be not, however, this discussion has no relevance to the original thread. Please stop driving the discussion in a wrong direction.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And what do you think this is about?--Ermenrich (talk)

Frankly, I consider this report stupid and frivolous, and I do not understand what it is about. Incivility? I think majority of the commenters do not think so. A length of a discussion? It is not that long as many other discussions I was participating in. Disruptive editing? I have done zero questionable edits. Pushing fringe views? Again, zero sources have been provided to demonstrate this view is fringe (the relevant WP article should be closely examined in terms of fact checking, accuracy and neutrality). What else? I don't know. Your frivolous report have distracted many fruitful users - for what? I don't know. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I currently count 7 editors in favor of a topic ban of some kind based on your pushing of fringe views. I suggest you rethink your strategy.--Ermenrich (talk)

I suggest you to be more accurate in your statements. Only a fraction of them cite fringe pushing as a reason. Majority of others seem to have come to their conclusion based on the false accusations thrown against me. In the unlikely case if a situation will develop in an unvaforable way, it will be easy to demonstrate, with diffs, that most of what I ostensibly wrote was written not by me.

In addition, you seem to mix consensus with vote. Legitimate concern of those who oppose has not be addressed, so there is clearly no consensus about any actions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop playing dumber than you are. You know very well you were implying over and over that I must be a Christian because I agree with the overwhelming majority of historians.★Trekker (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

See my response to Lurking shadow below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I am still under an impression the subject of this discussion is not my humble person but someone else. Thus, P Aculeius writes "He just needs to refrain from disruptive editing in the article space, for instance by deleting or dismissing valid sources and opinions based solely on his own interpretations of the evidence, or by giving undue weight to what is, essentially, a crackpot theory that's been rejected by virtually all mainstream scholarship for the last century. " Well, whereas I totally agree with that, why P Aculeius forgot to add "he should also stop beating his wife"? I made ZERO changes in the article space, I removed NO sources or content (it was my initial intention to restore the old article's version, but I clearly explained few hours after that that I meant restoring old structure, not removal old content). I also clearly explained, even before the ANI report was filed, that I am intended to read more before I make a decision about changing the Christianity related articles. P Aculeius, you are acting in a good faith, thank you, but your are discussing hypothetical actions that I may (in your opinion) take in future as if I already did that in the past. That is highly misleading. Even I myself have not decided yet what exactly I am going to do. By the way, in general, it is not my habit to remove sources when rearrangement of the content or addition of new sources may solve a problem. The question if some theory is really fringe is not a subject of this discussion. The Wikipedia article says it is, however, Wikipedia is not a source for itself. I can tell you honestly, I myself don't know if mainstream sources say it is fringe (originally I thought the view that Jesus was a historical figure are fringe, but now I see a situation is more complex), and I am certain nearly 100% of participants of this dispute do not know it either: they just read what the article says. I am going to read more on that subject, and, depending on the result, I either will edit this article or leave it as it is, and my peers have no right to prohibit me to do that without knowing what these edits will be.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in English, refrain from means "avoid", not "stop". If you read my replies carefully, you'd notice I never accused you of having edited the article disruptively; that's why I withdrew my support for the proposed topic ban, as suggested by another editor. I said that all you really needed to do to avoid a topic ban was to refrain from disruptive editing—since the changes you were proposing to make appeared potentially disruptive to all of the other editors who weighed in. As long as you have no intention of editing articles disruptively, this ANI can be resolved in your favour. The ball is in your court; the rest of us will be in the gym, doing our Pilates. P Aculeius (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but you must agree that when I am saying "He should refrain from beating his wife", that implies there is some non-zero possibility he may do that. I was not going to edit the article disruptively, and there is no evidences that I ever did that. I made clear what exactly I was going to do, and what I am not, and I am a little bit offended people are seriously discussing a possibility I can do something I never planned to.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you think you should have written this?

In that linked contribution to the discussion you say:"Indeed, only a religious Christian can believe Pilates was responsible for execution of Jesus, because other people know there were no Jesus. "

By using logic that means that you assert(there, in that sentence) that all people who believe Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians. Maybe it was spoken in the heat of the moment, but the concerns of these people do not come from thin air.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, you are right. Frankly, when I started that discussion, I sincerely thought no reasonable scholar believes in historicity of Jesus, because the Tacitus passage is either forgery or hearsay (when he was writing that Christianity had already been popular, and that myth had wide circulation), and the Josephus fragment is later addition. However, during this discussion I realized many serious (in all other aspects) authors believe in this bullshit (note, I do have POV, and I concede that). However, since a significant number of sources that are considered RS by Wikipedia say so I came to a conclusion that many authors or WP users may share this view without being religious Christians. As you already noted before, my viewpoint may evolve when I face new facts and reasonable arguments. Therefore, by the moment I was writing about "Christian propaganda" (next day) I was keeping in mind that some author/user may share this view on Jesus without being a religious Christian (which is a big surprise for me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That's partly the point. But part of the point is that some people in that discussion might be atheists who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus and might have been quite displeased to be called Christians.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly what the source presented by me says: many scholars who study Christ share the views of believers (although they remain atheists in other aspects). Interestingly, the same source says those who study Mohammad are less affected by that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. But your argumentation is "All people who think X are Y" Those who aren't Y at all and but think X might feel personally attacked by that statement, even if it was not your intention.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Listen, I already explained that was my point of view on 29th July. It has changed in light of what I learned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly not since you keep peddling that stuff bellow.★Trekker (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

★Trekker, I will be honest with you. Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me. I was surprised to learn it is not a fringe theory. I still got no evidences that the opposite theory (a.k.a. Jesus myth theory) is fringe, however, I was surprised to learn that many scholars writing about Christ are still sharing some idea with believers. Since a direct google scholar search gives a lot of references to various religious and theological writings, my analysis of what view is majority, minority or fringe has not been finished yet, however, my preliminary conclusion is that the theory that you call "Jesus myth theory" is by no means fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Paul Siebert, are you not allowed to reply to me down bellow where I actually leave my comments? Because it's going to be rather hard to follow this conversation if you just add your comments above with a ping to me.

As for your thoughts on what is and isn't fringe, you're clearly so biased that nothing you say can be taken seriously in my opinion, so what if you don't think that it's that fringe, I have 0 faith in you being able to judge something like this objectivly. Maybe it isn't as fringe as majority of historians think/act like, but I'm sure not going to trust you to teach me about that. Also, you're honestly going to claim you never once encountered the idea that Jesus was an actual person and this was accepted among many? What? Were you raised on some anti-intellectual Maoist commune? Did you not receive some history lessons during your education? I was raised in Sweden, possibly the most atheist country in the world, with parents and grandparents who never believe in God as long as I was alive, yet in my history lessons and talks with relatives it always seemed clear everyone knew Jesus life was based on actual historical events.★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I find it more convenient to discuss everything here.

Regarding my alleged bias, you also look biased to me. Moreover, I believed the views you are sharing are totally fringe (I mean is not shared by a scientific community), and only after I started to search sources I realized that is not the case.

Usually, when I start working on some new topic I am using the same simple trick: I call this game "a ignorant Wikipedian". This game is as follows. Suppose you know nothing about Reichstag fire and what to know what is the mainstream view on that subject. You go to google scholar (not google) and type something neutral. Something like this. The top 20-40 sources that are well cited usually give you an rough impression what majority sources say. Then I examine the sources that cite these sources, and so on. Suppose some other Wikipedian disagrees with my choice of sources. In that case they may propose their own search results, using a different keywords, but I can always say "hey, you are using not neutral search string!". If another party uses neutral keuwords, we usually find similar sets of sources.

The problem with this particular topic is that 99% of sources I found so far are either indoctrinated religious writings or some articles published in obscure journals (nothing in common with America Historical review or similar good journals). Therefore, I still haven't got a ultimate answer for myself on how exactly I am going to edit Christianity related articles.

You arguments about allegedly fringe nature of the JMT look absolutely non-convincing. Actually, you provided ZERO arguments; now I realize that happened because you believed any reasonable person is supposed to share your views. Unfortunately, to me, the opposite was obvious: any educated and rationally thinking person was supposed to share MY views. Now I realize the actual situation is more complex, however, I still haven't come to a final conclusion what is a majority view of scholarly community on that subject. One way or the another, I don't think this discussion should belong to this page. I will be glad to continue it later on some other page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe next time you should do some proper research first before 1. demand other editors justify the current state of a Wikipedia article, 2. you talk about rewriting an article / undoing major changes, and 3. you come up with theories like "people who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians". Robby.is.on (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, a neutral search according to the above described procedure provides the sources that confirms my early claims. Thus, one of the articles that appears among the top 10 results ("Pagan origins of the Christ myth") says "The myths and legends concerning such pagan christs as Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, etc., were later interpolated into the biography of Jesus", and insists the Christ myth (sic!) has a pagan origin. That means any other person doing a neutral search would find the same information. I admit, this neutral search also provide sources that support Tracker's view. Thus, the first source, "Shattering the Christ Myth" by James Patrick Holding says (page xii): "Jesus Christ theorists are amateurs to whom professional scholars pay little attention. And finally, Jesus really was God (as opposed to being defied after he died)." I am not sure if the author was serious, however, if he was, that kind of a proof is actually a perfect demonstration of my point: that those who are trying to debunk Jesus Myth theory are actually spreading Christian propaganda. Note, I just asked GoogleScholar, picked randomly two sources from the top of the list, and one of them says that Christ is a mythological chararacter of pagan origin, another says that those who believe Christ never existed are amateurs and Christ is a God. Do we need more evidences that I was right, that I am not pushing fringe theories and my opponents are spreading Christian propaganda? I admit my conclusion may be premature, however, that is the conclusion any neutral person would come to had they typed "christ myth theory" in google scholar and take first two relevant sources (the first four were not available for me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how much I can take this anymore. Every single thing you spout out is an arrogant deflection and projection of your own issues. You clearly have an innate dislike of Christianity, Christians, anything that is related to Christianity and anyone who doesn't share your views on Christianity and it's history. I am not biased on this topic, I have no reason to be, I hold history of Jesus and his legacy no higher than I do other historical figures (as a matter of fact I hold people like Alexander, Caesar and Augustus in far higher regard than him). Even when I personally disagree with the majority opinions of historians I can at least accept that I am indeed in the minority. For example, I don't go around and and demand Wikipedia claim the Iliad is more factual of the Bronze age than most historians think, even if I do hold that opinion.

The simple fact is that the JMT is a fringe theory and that has been the accepted consensus on it for as long as I can remember! All you have done is arogantly barge in and claim me and other people are spreading "religious propaganda" and are secret "Christians". When called out on this you simply try to gaslight and claim "well being a Christian is not a crime so how can it be an accusation?!!!" and "oh if I said you loved pasta you woulnd't be upset!!!!".★Trekker (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, although the question of my attitude to religion is my private business, I can tell you that I am an agnostic, which means I separate religion and knowledge. I am perfectly ok when the article is written solely based on Christian and theological sources, but I am totally oppose to the idea to mix science and religion.

Regarding JMT, read my response to Robby.is.on: I decided to play my "ignorant Wikipedian" game, and the result is as follows: a totally neutral person with ZERO preliminary knowledge about JMT will find two sources, one of them says Jesus myth has pagan origin, and another says JMT is fringe AND Jesus was God (sic!). I believe you must agree that the first conclusion this person will come to will be that the opponents of JMT are religious Christians. I by no means endorse this conclusion, but it looks natural, doesn't it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Funny you seem to care about religious beliefs being ones "private business" all of a sudden. You had no issue calling me and others Christians and ignoring that I insisted I was an atheist. Also, history as a field of knowlege is not generally considered a "science".★Trekker (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I expected you to answer to the major point of my post, because the results of my search looks pretty unexpected and interesting even for me. Unfortunately, you seem to be more interested in continuing the quarrel (I will be happy if this my conclusion is wrong). Actually, under "private business" I meant that my own attitude to Christianity and religion in general does not matter. However, I am not making a secret from it, and I am telling you I am agnostic (not atheist), which means my attitude is neutral. Moreover, I think Christianity had a very positive impact on the development of science. And, again, I already explained to you what I meant under "religious propaganda". If you want my frank opinion, all story around "religious propaganda" is very simple: since admins do not like to go in details of content disputes, so the best way to win it is to convert it to the conduct issue. You are free to decide if such a behaviou is honest.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

1. I am tired of trying to educate you. 2. My main issue is and has always been that you insult your fellow editors by assuming bad faith, that's why two of my requests (wherein I said I did not wish a ban or block on you) were about you learning to not do that again, but you have not even begun to realize that you have done anything wrong. 3. I don't really belive a word you say anymore, you do not seem like an honest person at all in how you have comunicated so far.★Trekker (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

★Trekker, Actually you request me to concede I called you Christian and apologize. The problem is that I didn't call you Christian, I said you are spreading Christian propaganda. I already explained (on the talk page) what does it mean, and let me do that again:

In some sense, we all, you, I, other users are Christians: we accepted some concepts, we observe Christmas and sometimes Easter, we all know Gospel stories, etc. We may be religious or not, but to some degree we all reproducing, partially, Christian narrative which is a part of our culture. However, one thing is to tell a story about Christ to our children, and another thing is to add them to serious history articles. That is what I meant under "Cristian propaganda". Have I been clear enough this time?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop already, it's getting embarrassing. Do you honestly think anyone is going to buy this drivel? Or are you honestly so arrogant that you believe your own lies? Christian means one thing and one thing only, to accept Jesus as the savior.

Also easter is originally a Jewish tradition and my family only celebrate Pagan/secular holidays amongst ourselves, such as Midsommar, Valborg/May Day, Jul and Lucia. I only observe "Christmas" with fellow Wikipedia's the same way I would "observe" Eid for my Muslim friends in real life.★Trekker (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me remind you that our civilisation is called Christian civilisation despite the fact that only a part of the Western world are religious Christians. Please, allow others to use this terminology at their own discretion.

Regarding Jewish Easter etc, each of us only partially observe Christian holidays (I myself do not observe them at all), however, emotionally Jesus is much closer to me than Mohammad or Buddha.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No. My home is not called a "Christian civiliasion", that's not a word I've ever seen used to describe my culture, Sweden is a secular nation and has been for a long time. So no, I'm not going to be fine with you labeling me a "Christian", especially since you've clearly used this technique to try to mock me and diminish my opinion. You can call yourself that if you so feel like it, (not that I belive for a second you would do it for any other reason than to try to misdirect over how you used it to insult me and others).

I also find it very disturbing that you seem to refer to something as "ours" here, I have no idea exactly where you're from but if you're implying something is "ours" just because both of us are European that does not appeal to me in the slightest. I feel no kinship with other people just because they happen to have also been born on the same continent. I don't think I have a lot in common with you.★Trekker (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't you find ironical that you, who accuse me of a negative attitude towards Christianity, deny the fact that our civilization is still Christian, whereas I defend this view? What about Protestant ethic as a significant social-economy factor? Anyway, these minuscul details are hardly relevant to this talk page.

I am living in the West, and our common home (Sweden is a part of the Western world, isn't it?) is traditionally called "Christian civilization". Modern leftists trends are gradually changing this situation, but I stick with more traditional views, and, despite I am agnostic and former atheist, Christianity is still emotionally closer to me than Islam or Buddhism. And it was normal to assume was even more applicable to you as soon as you were defending an odd (in my opinion) idea that Jesus really existed. Indeed, taking into account your position on Jesus, it was quite natural to assume that. Retrospectively, I understand that I shouldn't have to make this statement, but I couldn't know that in advance, and I already explained that to you. However, if that does not resolve the problem, that somewhat shakes my belief in your good faith, for it looks like you are just looking for a pretext for pretending you are feeling offended. I sincerely believe I err.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop gaslighting for the 1000th time, every single thing you've done wrong you're trying to peddle off on me.★Trekker (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

am I doing that by saying I was not right????--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well you're now implying that I'm prejudiced towards Christians, some thing which I've clealy expressed that I feel you are. And accepting partial guilt while simultaneously saying that "oh you're just pretending to be insulted by my insults" is gaslighting yes. You want to on the one hand act like you accept you were in the wrong, while still feeling justified in how you acted. That is not genuine. ★Trekker (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember what I wrote about my English? I probably didn't convey my thought adequately: I said I realize retrospectively I was not right, but by the moment I wrote that I had no reason to think I was not right. If you do not accept that as an apology, then you are just pretending you were insulted, and your actual emotions are different. I will be glad if I err.

Ok, ★Trekker, if that will make your life easier, and to save our time and page space, I formally apologize. As I already posted below, I will be absent during next two weeks, so I will not see your responce. I hope it will be peaceful. :-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what "err" is. Also, demanding people accept apologies on your terms is not very something which I think seems very genuine once again. I would love to be able to see your apology as completly sincere, (because I do belive based on what other people have said here that you have done great things for Wikipedia as an editor and I stand by that I don't want you banned in any way, and I really hate to be on bad terms with any other editors), but I also can't really claim I find you to be a particularly honest or pleasant person. But in the end I guess you can never truly know what people hold in their minds, so I will assume good faith here and take it you do realize it was poor judgement which lead you to say those things. Have a nice vacation.★Trekker (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Elephant in the room: CIR

Now that My very best wishes brought it up below [154], [155], I think it's time to address the broader issue of WP:CIR and what Paul Siebert's net purpose and contributions to Wikipedia are. Aside from posting literally hundreds of thousands of bytes across multiple pages promulgating the WP:FRINGE theory of the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Paul Siebert has engaged in similar if not worse behavior on other Wikipedia pages: [156]. In nine years he made 3,301 posts to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes (he made only 195 to the article itself), driving good editors like My very best wishes away. He made 1,760 posts on Talk:World War II (making only 352 edits to the article itself). In less than 1.5 years he made 920 posts on Talk:Communist terrorism [157] (making only 84 edits on the article itself). He has made more than 100 posts to at least 18 article talkpages on Wikipedia, usually running into the several hundreds per talkpage: [158]. His pie-chart is an extremely lopsided 64% article-talk and 15% article: [159]. My observation is that Paul Siebert's purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to expatiate at exporbitant, unheeding, and extremely repetitive length on article-talk pages. He does not adequately seem to be here for collaborative purposes or to built an encyclopedia, and he seems broadly to lack the competence to participate in collaboratively building an encyclopedia. It seems at this point, and this current massive fringe-pushing is a case in point, that his presence on Wikipedia is likely too disruptive (we already know he is dominating conversations and driving good editors away) for him to continue. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding FRINGE, in the previous section, I just presented the results of my neutral search aimed to figure out if the claim the JMT is fringe. I agree that it is probably quite possible to find sources that support your view ... if you want to prove your already existing viewpoint. But what happens when a person who knows nothing about JMT wants to learn about it?

First, this person goes to google scholar (or jstor, or isi Thompson-Reuter, or Scopus, but NOT is google). Why? If you are competent, you will explain me that.

Second. This person types some neutral phrase ("Jesus myth theory", as I did, but not "Jesus myth theory fringe/debunked/refuted").

Third, this person reads sources that appear on the top of the list and are cited by others. I did that, and everybody can repeat this procedure to see I was not cherry-picking. And what Ii found? One of the first source says JMT is rejected by serious scholars AND Jesus was God (sic!). What conclusion a neutral person will come to? I think the answer is obvious. Another source says Jesus is a mythological character, and he was produced after pagan myths about "Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, etc., were later interpolated into the biography of Jesus."

I believe everybody will agree that the logical conclusion this person will come to is pretty obvious, and that will be NOT the conclusion will not be in favour of your viewpoint. Currently, I am not advocating this conclusion, because I am at the very beginning of the process of sources analysis, however, it is obvious that there is some ground to believe your claims are questionable at least.

Finally, I am among few Wikipedians (if not the only one) who is known to work with sources very professionally. That fact has been published in a reliable source which is easy to find. This source[160] says Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model informationsearcher (according to his user page he has a PhD so this is perhaps not so surprising).He claims no biases, uses the information technology of choice for Wikipedia editors(Google Scholar) and applies the criteria of peer-review as a means to filter potentialinformation sources. And the sources he finds I think would be viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough....

Again, that is an opinion about me published in the source that meets all top reliablility secondary sources criteria. That means you are expected to present something more serious that your baseless allegations, for outstanding claims require outstanding evidences. And all of that cast a serious doubt on your own competence.

Regarding my posts on other talk pages, believe you or not World War II is a very high level article, it is being read by nearly 100,000 persons every day, so we, the users who are working on this article do that very cautiously, and discuss every change on the talk page first. However, if you find this habit non-productive or disruptive, you may directly ask JoshRamirez29, User:Jack90s15, Jack Upland, Nick-D, Volunteer Marek, this and others about that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And, as soon as you mentioned Mass Killings... article, if you can do anything but counting the number of edits (I sincerely believe you can), you should have probably noticed that the article was under severe edit restrictions for several years, and after that was fully protected during 6 years or so. Each new edit was supposed to be supported by consensus, and only after some admin implemented it. It is not a surprise that to put just a couple of words in teh article users had to type thousands words on the talk page. The fact that you overlooked this circumstance does not add credibility to your assertions in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever in my years on this site seen an editor with such a high opinion on themselves. Fine, you seem to have some reason to have a high opinion of yourself, that doesn't change that you have been increddibly rude and assumed bad faith during the majority of this whole ordeal. If you can't actually act in compliance with Wikipedia's demands you shouldn't be here. We don't need editors who scare away other good editors. No matter how good you are you're not infallible, which you act like you are, (clearly you're not very good with ancient history). How about take some of the criticism so far to heart and maybe better yourself?★Trekker (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Trekker, be logical: when someone throws a bizarre accusation of my incompetence, the best way is to respond in the same exaggerated way. The same source that I already cited says that sometimes Wikipedia breaks standard criteria of competence, but does not replace them with equally good new rules. The first thing Wikipedia needs is a good content: it is the world's most important informational resource, not your hobby. Regarding "we dpn't need editors who scare away other good editors", if you are really good, it is not easy to scare you, because your arguments are strong, and your statements are hard to refute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is most definitely my hobby. I'm not going to break my back bending over to please you and your delusions of grandeur. I'm not obligated (nor is anyone else) to do a single thing but abide by Wikipedia's guidlines when I edit, I edit for fun, not some obligation towards the world, if I got bored with Wikipedia tomorrow I would quit without a second thought. This is a volunteer effort, not some job we get rewarded for, if you scare of people they're not going to be automatically replaced because the "position" is vacant, doesn't matter how good you supposedly are at citing if no one wants to work with you. People aren't scared of your opinons or sources, they're scared of your forceful, rude, arogant, manipulative and disingenuous personality. Also, none of the accusations so far have been remotely "bizarre", you acted like a di*k and refused to consider other peoples positions as anything but "biased Christians", now you're here and people are telling you exactly that.★Trekker (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it is a hobby for both of us. Obviously, what I meant that the primary goal of Wikipedia is not to be your hobby.

And I neither expect nor want anybody to bend over. My post was an answer to a blatantly incompetent accusation in incompetence.

Treker, believe me, the only situation I am pleased is when my arguments are addressed using even stronger arguments. I love convincing people I am right, and I equally love when someone convinces me I am wrong. However, by convincing I mean not "You are obviously not right, XXX people say you that", but "You are not right, because there is a logical flaw in this your argument, and the source Y was misinterpreted by you." THAT type of arguments I gladly accept, and I that is what I call "to show respect".

By the way, you probably noticed from my habit to put "the" totally arbitrarily that English is not my mother tong (one friend of mine even told be he can easily that resognise a document was written by my compatriots based on very specific mistakes we do when we place "a" and "the"). Therefore, I am not surprised some nuances of my English may create a wrong impression of rudeness or arrogance. However, that is just a wrong impression. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No Siebert, I do not belive that the "impression of rudeness" comes from minor slipups in English writing. I don't belive you're bad at English at all, I think on the other hand that you use the fact that English is not your first language to feign ignorance.★Trekker (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought my English writing skills were more poor. Actually, I meant not grammar, but cultural aspects. In my native country we are more direct, which creates a wrong impression of rudeness. And, in addition, where is your own assumption of good faith? I told you I had no intention to insult others, I told you I have an impression I sometimes am not feeling some nuances that may insult others - then point my attention at that. As a rule, when that is explained to me I am trying to avoid this tyupe wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My good faith assumptions towards you kinda died after the third time I asked you to acknowledge that accusing people of being Christians to diminish their opinions is not cool and very unfounded.★Trekker (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if I say that it was not the most wise statement I made during that discussion, will it resolve a situation?

Let me also note that your repeating posts "you are obviously wrong, just admit it" were really annoying and they insulted my brain, for I usually expect such claims to be supplemented with some real arguments. I consider that behaviou deeply insulting, so, please, admit we both were not right in that dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised your brain felt insulted, you seem like the type who can't comprehend when someone doesn't bend over and accept everything you say. And no, I'm not giving in to your poor bargening here, "well agree we were both in the wrong", that would be disengenous on my part becuse that would mean I feel we were anything near equally guilty. We are not. You barged in to a subject demanding stuff be done and having a long time plan for several other pages without having even a good grasp on the subject at all and then proceded to make a complete fool of yourself by insulting people left and right when they had a different opinion. This is once again an attempt at gaslighting by moving the guilt on to someone else. No sympathy.★Trekker (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont have access to that article, but finding sources that are "decent enough" in an article whose abstract says Wikipedians deal "shallowly" with sources and dont invest much time in them feels like fairly light praise. Also note the paper says "Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model informationsearcher" not that you are one. That's not to say you didn't do a good job at the Vietnam article, but I don't think your mention in that paper amounts to much based on what I've seen.

Just as an example of some questionable source practices you're displaying now: You neglected to mention that the paper that supports the Jesus myth theory you found is from the 60s, and the pro paper is clearly not representative. I suspect you dismiss any journal with "biblical" in its title, am I wrong?--Ermenrich (talk)

this link should work. Let me know if you were able to download it. In a case if it is not working, here are some quotes:

" It is Paul Siebert, champion of the more traditional information routine, who digs deeper into the sources than anyone else,using contextual knowledge to argue against the inclusion of RAND reports (this particular report was not highly cited in Google Scholar and RAND itself, being heavily obligated to the US Government, cannot be considered an unbiased agent). He also appears to have actually read the Moise article and provides an outline of the argument showing that it does not rely uncritically on Communist Party newspapers. He also qualifies Porter’s errors regarding the Khmer Rouge, noting that little information wascoming out of Cambodia at the time and hence many were fooled..."

"the history of the substitution of these three sources for the others generally agreedon through the RSN is an interesting one–the switch was made on 19 February 2013,only a month or so after the RSN debate. The comment accompanying the change wasmerely:“Use original sources”. This time there was no Paul Siebert to intervene and thechange remains up to the time of writing."

And he wrote not just "decent enough", but "viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough....".

Frankly, I don't like to cite this article, I have to do that because people accuse me of incompetence.

Actually, what is more interesting in this article is the concept of Pfister’s destabilisation: "Wikipedia destabilizes familiar information routines, that is, changes the criteria we use to judge expertise, albeit, I would argue, without replacing them with much that could be construed as progressive". I think we are having here exactly the same situation: you are claiming I am incompetent without setting good competence criteria. Actually, the only reason you guys claim you are competent is that you achieved a consensus among themselves. I do not claim this is a bad criterion, but I doubt it is good either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just noticed two good question you asked. Here are my answers:

• "You neglected to mention that the paper that supports the Jesus myth theory you found is from the 60s, and the pro paper is clearly not representative." That is why I am using a totally transparent procedure: you got an opportunity to put forward this argument. Here are the results of another search that includes only the 2015-19 period. The first article I has access to is this. I had no time to read it, but it discusses Buddha and Christ myths, and the author seems to be a proponent of JMT.
• "If I I suspect you dismiss any journal with "biblical" in its title, am I wrong?" It depends. If the journal is published by Pergamon, Springer, Whiley, Cambridge University press, SAGE and similar publishers, the journals are quite ok. If they are listed in ISI Thompsom-Reuter, can be found in jstor, that is a sign the journals are good. The above paper seems to be published in a journal of some society of Brazilian scholars, so it is ok too. I don't know yet about other journals that publish Christianity related papers, let's think together.

In addition, I think the word "biblical" or something of that kind is not a kind of a stop sign that immediately disqualifies such a journal, however, when some journal published papers that seriously discuss Christ's miracles, or contains statements about divinity of Christs (similar to what Ii presented above), that immediately makes impossible to use sich publications as sources in the WP articles in the same section with the content obtained from scholarly journals. I expect you agree with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Responding to the ping above, I'd confirm that Paul's high number of edits to Talk:World War II is due to the conventions regarding this very high profile article, where significant proposed changes are discussed before being made, sometimes in great detail. Using this as a stick to hit Paul with suggests a total lack of research - it actually demonstrates that he's making a valuable contribution to the article. I've worked with Paul for years on that article, and while we don't always agree I greatly respect the constructive way he conducts himself in discussions (I'm both the second-most prolific contributor to discussions at Talk:World War II and the second-most prolific editor of the article BTW - I hope this isn't a sign that I'm disruptive!). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• At this point, I would support a ban from Wikipedia. It seems to me that he tries to disgust active members from contributing by swarming them under massive walls of text and deliberately misinterpreting other editors' arguments, shifting goalposts, etc., but only on the talk pages. I have to say he is very talented at doing this, and that it is a very clever way to maliciously influence Wikipedia without being spotted, since he barely contributes to the articles—some members have even defended him on this very fact here. T8612 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't agree with that at all. Paul makes a great contribution to articles on World War II, and engages very constructively in talk page discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps he makes good edits on WWII, but if you read the actual topics discussed, you'll see that his contributions are considered disruptive, to say the least. T8612 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

From above and below, I don't find this at all convincing. It really does look like a "closed shop" using exaggerated complaints to try to force someone out of the topic space they're guarding. The false claims about Paul's editing in fields I'm familiar with which are being used to beef up the complaints regarding his editing on topics related to whether Jesus existed actually dramatically undermine these complaints to my mind. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont know and I dont really care whether Paul makes good edits on WW2. But his behavior at Talk:Pontius Pilate was atrocious and I think hes likely to do it again. Even if the Jesus myth theory IS just minority and not fringe, hes very clearly POV pushing and refusing to engage in either intelligent debate or accept consensus.--Ermenrich (talk)

I don't know if this is related, but in this edit, he used the Twinkle ROLLBACK (vandal) tool on an IP user that isn't vandalism. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 07:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If that was the case, than that was definitely wrong. Probably, just hit a wrong button. In general, I use it very infrequently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

Since 29 July 2019 Paul Siebert has thus far made 82 posts totalling 47,000 bytes to Talk:Pontius Pilate, in a single thread [161]. No one has supported his proposals or arguments, and they have been objected to by eight editors: Ermenrich, *Treker, Urg writer, Ltwin, P Aculeius, T8612, Andrew Dalby, and Johnbod. He has been asked to desist (due to clear lack of consensus) by uninvolved editors including Furius and William Avery, and has been asked to either desist or create an RFC by uninvolved editor Softlavender. He was also formally warned on his usertalk [162] by Doug Weller. Nevertheless he has continued to voluminously argue with others, even in the face of repeated warnings that this would go to ANI if he persisted.

In the face of this endless WP:DE and WP:TE, I propose one or both of the following Topic bans:

1. Topic ban on Pontius Pilate.

2. Topic ban on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed.

-- Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed, as proposer. Enough is enough, and Paul Siebert will continue his crusade onto other articles if he is banned only from the Pontius Pilate article. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. The discussion above gives me no hope that Paul Siebert has learned anything from this experience so far, and I think if he does not receive these topic bans now he'll just disrupt the project more on other Jesus/Christianity related articles in the future, as he indeed has said he intends to do. (This is only my second time at ANI, so I apologize if I'm not supposed to vote as the person who brought the complaint).--Ermenrich (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. I explained my thinking in detail in the section above. In brief, Paul Siebert's bizarre opinion that anyone who concludes that Jesus was a historical figure is therefore themself a Christian is so illogical that it disqualifies this editor to work in this topic area. Ermenrich, you are fine. You are welcome to express your considered judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history Their tendentious WP:PROFRINGE editing and WP:IDHT behavior in this discussion is enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose There are some things that lead me to believe that there is more than one problem. We should not act with great haste on this complicated situation:

Just a bit more than 10 minutes after Paul Siebert started the discussion Emenrich started to inform the Christianity portals: [163] Shortly after that Ermenrich described good faith editing as vandalism. Also, there is a general pile-on by people from the Portal. This is a problematic edit by Paul Siebert, because it says that "Indeed, only a religious Christian can believe Pilates was responsible for execution of Jesus, because other people know there were no Jesus." which is a sweeping generalization indicative of a strong POV. A similar edit comes a bit later:[164]. The next problematic edit comes from *Treker, who insists that "no one is going to support your idea", a phrase easily used to stifle legitimate discussion. This makes clear that a source used is unreliable(That's not problematic, indeed, that's progress). [165] A source of unknown reliablilty, can someone else research that? Here we have a significant number of sources cited, by Paul Siebert. I don't have enough time to research if they are fringe sources or not... Another batch of sources? Also, something that looks like an attempt to come forward... This is a good point bringing the discussion forward... and then we have this post. Siebert argues moderately, and even changes their viewpoint(!) a bit. And he is correct in that the other side of the discussion failed to provide an adequate number of reliable sources to that point! Contrast this with the the next contribution. This is the point where Softlavender comes in and argues that there is clearly a consensus against Paul Siebert's opinion, a viewpoint that my analysis does not support. There are more people on the other side, but less sources provided in the discussion. They also assert that the discussion is becoming disruptive because of the number of bytes, but that's simply a bad idea to say, as long as there is progress. The next person comes in and asserts that there is something wrong with one editor arguing against multiple editors; saying this just after that person moved their viewpoint a bit in that direction cannot be a good idea. I suggest that these advocating a ban look at the next link: [166] The frustration and the reasoning there are totally sound to have.

TL;DR:Paul Siebert is making long, sourced arguments against a number of editors giving little sources; is indeed contrary to the assertions taking the others into account, including changing their opinion. On the other hand, the other editors do not directly provide sources, with one or two exceptions, and demand to be seen as consensus because they have the numbers. Lurking shadow (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. He's still clearly editing against WP:CONSENSUS, and repeatedly engaging in WP:DE and WP:TE. No one out of 12 editors (some of them completely uninvolved) agreed with him. Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS, not by who posts the most or the longest or lists the most sources. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That's extremely wrong. He isn't editing against consensus, he is arguing something trying to get to a consensus. These arguments have been opposed by other editors without much good reasoning as no consensus from very early on in this discussion. That they changed their views on the subject a bit already is also definitely not a sign of tendentious editing, at least not a sign of continued tendentious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that's tendentiously and disruptively editing against a very clear consensus and repeated requests to drop the stick. Perhaps you don't know these things, having made less than 300 edits on Wikipedia [167], but you already have a topic ban of your own [168], so maybe you're not the best commenter on this subject. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you please give me some diffs of tendentious editing? Or disruptive editing? Can you please tell me why the debate is supposed to have reached its natural end by having only circular arguments anymore? I see a bit of circular discussion. But mainly in the middle of the debate. I also see, however, a break into new arguments and into a new viewpoint near the end of the debate, shortly before you came in.Lurking shadow (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how long or "sourced" your arguments are if what you're saying is still nonsense.★Trekker (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed as phrased by Ad Orientem above. I have had no involvement with the editor (that I can recall) and have not been involved in the articles, but wading through the discussions including the one right here makes it very clear that this is tendentious and disruptive editing that has taken up a lot of time from other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 07:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history (ie per Ad Orientem). My advice and warning clearly didn't work and he doesn't seem able to drop the stick. I also note that he said that I was an involved editor on the basis that in April 2015 I reverted an era style change and then later in the thread on his talk page that I was involved because of the discussion on his talk page. Admin involvement doesn't work that way. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as construed by Ad Orientem. [see below] Not being an administrator, I think this may be the first time I've weighed in on ANI, and I don't take this position lightly. I know how it feels to be certain that you're right, even when everyone else in the room disagrees. But I also know when to drop the stick, and Mr. Siebert doesn't seem to; indeed, he's not just arguing that the other editors are wrong, but that their opinions, all of the opinions of scholars who disagree with his position, and all of the evidence that weighs against his opinion are wrong, invalid, or inherently biased because they disagree. Based on the tone of the discussion and his own statements, I'm concerned that he'll try to implement what I consider, and what Wikipedia's own article on the topic of the Jesus myth theory says is a fringe position, potentially on numerous articles. I note from his talk page that he seems to have been a productive editor in other fields in the past; and I'm not questioning his claims of good faith, but as established in the "disruptive editing" topic, good faith isn't a defense against DE. So at least for now a topic ban seems to be the right solution. P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as construed by Ad Orientem. - P Aculeius talks a lot of sense, and this seems to be the best remedy, given that Siebert is not hearing the multiple voices telling them that they have pursued this too far.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose topic ban. This seems to be almost entirely confined to a single overly-wordy section on one page and a single relatively brief WP:RSN request; that falls far short of anything that could be reasonably called disruption on its own. When people talk about WP:IDHT on talk pages, it tends to mean much more extreme stuff than this - stuff that requires people clean it up, like starting countless redundant discussions on multiple venues, not just being intransigent in one discussion, confined (mostly) to a single section. WP:IDHT in particular talks about sanctions only in the context of Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed, which is clearly talking about actions and about more actively disruptive talk page editing (things that have to be "cleaned up", WP:BOLD actions that are actually reckless, etc), not merely intransigence in a single talk page section - a topic ban shouldn't be used for "jesus, why won't he shut up?" How have things been disrupted for anyone who just stays out of that one discussion section after dropping their opinion there a single time? All else aside, I'm not seeing why the people in dispute with him can't just... ignore him? They're capable of WP:DROPTHESTICK as well, since plainly he lacks consensus to actually implement his changes and (at least, I assume, based on the fact that those diffs would obviously be the key part of discussion if this weren't true) shows no inclination to actually try and implement his proposed changes against consensus. Sometimes the solution is just to stop talking - nobody is forced to "clean up" his talk page comments; once it's clear he lacks consensus (and once they've dropped their opinion in once to make that clear), they're free to wander off. I'm also not seeing any evidence above that the editor has actually been a problem in this topic area outside of this one dispute, which is, again, confined to one section and one small WP:RSN request (people imply he'd just wander off to another page, but... that's something you have to show from his edit history.) What this looks like is a bunch of people on all sides refusing to back down and stop arguing with each other long after debate has reached a natural conclusion. But the article-content thing seems settled, so nobody has to actually keep arguing this - no one is forced to spend time replying to him - and, conversely, that means that Siebert's comments are hard to really qualify as disruption, especially since (by my reading) this is all essentially confined to one talk page section on a single article. If Siebert were starting new discussions over and over or across countless different venues, sure, that would be disruptive, but in this case nothing seems to stop anyone else involved from saying "we've said our piece, it's clear consensus is against you for now, bye." Also, finally - it seems like nobody has even attempted an WP:RFC, which is the obvious dispute-resolution step when someone refuses to accept that they've reached a consensus. Leaping to WP:ANI to demand a topic-ban over refusal to accept a consensus, without even taking that first obvious step to shut down this sort of protracted discussion, seems to me to be extremely premature. I'm not saying an RFC is necessary given the lopsided discussions - I think people could just stop replying to Siebert, as I said above, since he's shown no actual inclination to put his edits into effect once it was clear how many people opposed them - but if they want this decisively resolved, that would be the obvious step, not a topic ban. People accuse Seibert of ignoring suggestions to create an RFC, but it's unclear why (if they feel discussions are going in circles or are no longer productive, or if they think there's a clear consensus that Siebert is refusing to accept) they couldn't just create that RFC themselves. For that matter, nobody has tried hatting the discussion or, well, anything beyond just arguing in circle and then leaping straight to ANI) - Siebert reverting attempts to hat the discussion, for instance, would be more convincing WP:IDHT than "he won't stop talking in this one section and we, for some reason, are unable to resist replying." Am I missing something here? The support for a topic ban, above, seems absurd - yes, it's possible to require one just from WP:IDHT on talk; no, this doesn't seem anywhere remotely close to a point where it could be legitimately considered, let alone actively supported. We have countless methods to resolve situations like this before reaching for sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • An 800-word wall-of-text poll !vote? No wonder you don't understand the problem. It's nonstop endless posts like this that disrupt the project with endless distraction. Not replying to someone who threatens to disrupt other articles if he fails to get his way (or to revert to his desired version if people do not meet his demands) is not an option. It is up to the person who clearly does not have consensus to stop their disruption, especially when asked repeatedly by both involved and uninvolved editors and even administrators and when told repeatedly that more disruption will result in ANI and probably a topic ban. Ignoring those simple and clear requests and protocols is not only the essence of WP:DE and WP:TE, it is also the essence of WP:CIR, and the fact that the editor is continuing their nonsensical campaign on this ANI thread is more evidence that there is a fairly serious WP:CIR problem that may come up again even with the topic ban in place. Softlavender (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • He made one comment (his initial post at the start of the section) suggesting a change to the article - entirely reasonable given that nobody had weighed in yet to establish consensus and the initial rewrite was WP:BOLD - and one other comment suggesting a related broader change which was clearly shot down. In neither case did he suggest he would push those issues once it was clear he lacked consensus; characterizing him as someone who threatens to disrupt other articles based on that is torturous to the point of bordering on a personal attack. Anyone is going to look bad when they have eight people arguing against him, and obviously he should have shut up long ago, but continuing a single centralized discussion, on a single talk page, when nobody has made any effort to resolve the discussion beyond repeatedly replying to him, is obviously not disruptive. (Again, nobody has attempted even the bare minimum of hatting it, marking it as resolved, or one of the numerous methods available to shut down discussions that are going nowhere.) And, honestly, you are not helping your case by immediately accusing the second oppose !vote of being disruptive; obviously I'm going to be wordy when it seems like so many experienced editors are missing multiple vital aspects of this discussion. WP:IDHT, WP:DE, WP:TE and WP:CIR are not tools to resolve disputes, they're there to resolve actual disruption - things that require time and effort for editors to repair, not just discussions that you can't personally resist wasting time on. "I want Paul Siebert (and Aquillion and Lurking Shadow, I suppose now) to shut up" isn't disruption. --Aquillion (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • You can see a bit of tendentious arguing, initially. But this link, especially "Moreover, I realized I was partially wrong, and in reality a part of scholars still believe the Tacitus passage about Christ is authentic (although many of them conclude he just reproduced a story told by some early Christian). For me, that is a new information, and I am glad I found it." does not look like a stubborn WP:IDHT editor that edits to further some bias. Rather, it looks like an editor who does have some initial bias and has assumed things about sourcing wrongly but is able to re-assess that based on what others said. They have heard it. Just not right away. Lurking shadow (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Except that hes actually still wrong and arguing about something completely extraneous to the matter at hand.
        • Also, I'd like to note that I was very publicly sharing my draft on the article's talk page. Paul Siebert could have easily commented before instead of simply threatening to undo everything.--Ermenrich (talk)
          • That they are wrong is your opinion. Did you back up your reasoning that it is a fringe theory by directly naming sources that say it is actually a fringe theory? Did you back it up by directly naming all the established sources and pointing out that the vast majority of them reject that theory? WP:TE goes both ways - a theory isn't fringe just because you believe so or because a Wikipedia article currently says so(Wikipedia articles are not a WP:RS).Lurking shadow (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
          • It is not unusual that people only realize that there is something they disagree with happening to an article when you actually edit that article.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As I stated above, I and other editors pointed to the sources cited in the article, all of which assume the historicity of Jesus as non controversial. Paul Siebert simply dismissed those RS and started using their own logic to disprove Jesus.--Ermenrich (talk)

• Support Pontius TBAN, Oppose Broader TBAN - I feel the reasoning made is sufficient to prove both disruptive and quite possibly CIR issues. However, while I certainly recognise the risks of the tendentious editing (though on talk pages) moving to related themes, I am disinclined to make such a broad TBAN until required. The fact that they aren't causing article-editing disruption means the editor isn't out of control. I strongly considered opposing the TBAN entirely, but I felt that a reasonable case had been made. I don't know if the editor will improve, but there is certainly more chance than with others we've seen. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: that's a good point, why don't we wait and see if Mr. Siebert actually begins removing valid sources without adequate reasons, or inappropriately inserts Jesus Myth theory into articles? Obviously the theory exists and can be mentioned in appropriate places and with the proper tone—although as it's a fringe theory it could easily be given undue weight if added to every potentially relevant article. But it's hard to judge instances without seeing the proposed additions, which in any case could be edited collaboratively if necessary. So calming down and waiting to see what happens before implementing a topic ban seems eminently sensible. As Aquillion says, it's not disruptive editing unless it actually occurs in the article, and can't be adequately dealt with by the usual means (such as trimming or rewording). P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think he either gets tban'd now or it will happen later. I dont think he'll be able to write productively on these subjects.--Ermenrich (talk)

You're probably right, but a topic ban at this point would amount to what we might call "prior restraint", i.e. an administrative sanction for something that hasn't happened yet. So far, he's only argued that he ought to revise/revert/rewrite a group of topics to reflect a certain viewpoint. While imposing a topic ban would prevent him from doing so, it would also prevent him from making legitimate edits, and go on his record, so it's not entirely harmless. And unlike the types of harm against which you might seek an injunction, anything he does can be revised or reverted if necessary, leaving no lasting harm. And that would be the time to consider imposing a topic ban. P Aculeius (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment All I honestly want is A) for him to accept that the current majority opinion among modern historians is that Jesus existed, B) for him to stop acting like accusing other people of being Christian is not an attempt at diminishing their opinions on this topic, and C) realize that not everyone how belives Jesus existed is a Christian or even religious for that matter. I do not ask for a topic ban or even a block.★Trekker (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

B and C are definitely requests I can endorse based on what I have read. I will not expect them accepting A at all unless you can actually back up that it is the current majority opinion with reliable sources that say that it is the majority opinion(and even if it is - not every theory opposing the majority opinion is a fringe theory); and with backing up I mean linking these sources and explaining how they back your statements, not merely proclaiming their existance.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, he doesn't really need to accept anything. He just needs to refrain from disruptive editing in the article space, for instance by deleting or dismissing valid sources and opinions based solely on his own interpretations of the evidence, or by giving undue weight to what is, essentially, a crackpot theory that's been rejected by virtually all mainstream scholarship for the last century. We don't have to prove to him that he's wrong, as long as he doesn't use Wikipedia as a platform to prove that he's right. There are, incidentally, plenty of historical sources cited in the Pilate article and the Jesus Myth theory article that support the basic premise currently in dispute: namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person who lived in Judaea, was put to death by crucifiction during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, and whose followers ascribed to him the attributes, deeds, and teachings that subsequently formed the basis of Christianity. History says nothing about his divinity or any supposed miracles performed by him; only what his contemporaries and subsequent generations said about him. The scholars already cited for the proposition that Jesus Myth theory is not a mainstream view clearly indicate that the theory is discredited: 1) because it requires the rejection of all of the evidence indicating that Jesus was an actual person, including the opinions of writers who were not Christian or even hostile to Christianity; and 2) it requires the assumption that rather than simply embellishing and mythologizing stories about an actual person, the early Christians simply invented a person who never existed in order to justify their religion worshiping him—and got away with it, since nobody until modern times, including the Romans themselves, seems to have doubted that there was such a person! But I digress. Opinions are like cows: everybody has one, and Mr. Siebert's entitled to his. We don't have to change it, as long as he doesn't use Wikipedia as a platform to share it. P Aculeius (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• • Nosebagbear and P Aculeius, Paul Siebert has stated several times and in several places that he is going to take his "Jesus-did-not-exist" campaign to a variety of other Wikipedia articles. I realize that this may be hard to discern amidst the huge mountain of verbiage he has generated both here and on article-talk and on usertalk pages, but that is a fact, and that is the continued disruption that the topic ban(s) are attempting to prevent. We don't have the manpower to babysit him and see whether he carries out those plans or not. Hence the broader topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban on historicity of Jesus, or whatever is necessary. Stuff like this [169] is excessive. Their failure to acknowledge how problematic their behavior is, and the continued denial of any problem, indicates that the disruption will continue until this editor is removed from the topic area. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Canvassing by Ermenrich I just looked at the message Ermenrich wrote at these two portals they mentioned, the message that was responsible for the initial batch of people coming in and it is a clear-cut case of canvassing:[170]; [171]. Lurking shadow (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I did not learn of this discussion through those messages, and came to this conversation entirely on my own. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I don't doubt that, because my accusations of canvassing relate to the discussion that spawned this ANI thread, not to this thread itself.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC) How is that canvassing, anyway? As opposed to an attempt at getting some outside input from related Wikiprojects? El_C 06:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Because it is a clearly biased message? Them contacting these wikiprojects in a neutral manner would not have been a problem.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict):Lurking shadow, as far as I know, posting at project pages is not considered canvassing, although Ermenrich was supposed to use more neutral wording. By the way, now I started to partially understand the reason for such an inadequate reaction: for some reason, he concluded I was going to remove all content added by him, whereas I wanted just to re-arrange it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC) The messages report a dispute over an attempt to undo editing that was based on and cited to reliable sources, and they were posted on WikiProject talkpages, the standard venue for such notices. This is not canvassing. Plus one of the WikiProjects had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, so no one viewing that notice had any disposition towards a Christian perspective. Neither of the notices were about this ANI thread. Lurking shadow, whatever you're trying to do, and for whatever reason, it's not helping Paul Siebert -- it's making him look worse. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Did you read the notice Softlavender? The location of the notice is not the problem, it is the content of that notice - it is obviously and extremely biased towards the wishes of its author.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I read the notices. The messages report a dispute over an attempt to undo editing that was based on and cited to reliable sources, and ask neutrally for help. This is not canvassing; this is getting outside opinions from relevant WikiProjects. Lurking shadow, whatever you're trying to do, and for whatever reason, it is not helping Paul Siebert and your posts are becoming repetitive and disruptive. I wouldn't be surprised if your sections get collapsed. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC) "... and ask neutrally for help". What? Neutrally? How is this a neutral message? A neutral message does not include the preferences of its author. . It does not describe an opposing view as a threat. It definitely does not contain a plea for help against an opposing view!Lurking shadow (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC) The message did not describe the "opposing view" as "a threat"; in fact, it did not mention an "opposing view", but rather accurately stated that "Paul Seibert is threatening to undo the extensive rewrite I have just performed", which is exactly what Paul Siebert said he would do: "I am going to revert all recent changes and restore the old article structure." -- Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC) A much more neutral message would look like this in this case: A rewrite of Pontius Pilate is currently under discussion. One of the arguments against the rewrite is as follows: "We should never mix Pilates as a real historical figure with Pilates as he was described in Gospels Otherwise, we have to admit Gospels are historical documents, and Jesus was a real person, not a Christian mythology character." One of the arguments for the rewrite is as follows:"The Christ myth theory is a minority opinion. All the reliable sources I have used describe Jesus as a historical person." Your contributions would be welcome. That would still not be perfect, but I wouldn't complain about it.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Lurking shadow, that was not the issue at hand. The issue at hand, which Ermenrich accurately summarized, was that Paul Siebert was about to immediately and unilaterally completely revert the RS-citation-based rewrite of the article that Ermenrich had just completed. You made an inaccurate accusation of canvassing, and were disproved, even by Paul Siebert himself. Now please stop before you yourself are reported for disruptive and tendentious editing, and possibly blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Let's just agree to disagree on canvassing here - although I agree that the threat of reversal could have been included.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Like Aquillion, I'm squeamish about singling someone out for a ban because of a long and tedious, but civil, talk page discussion. Haukur (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Haukur, Paul Siebert has stated several times and in several places that he is going to take his "Jesus-did-not-exist" campaign to a variety of other Wikipedia articles. I realize that this may be hard to discern amidst the huge mountain of verbiage he has generated both here and on article-talk and on usertalk pages, but that is a fact, and that is the continued disruption that the topic ban(s) are attempting to prevent. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity. The view that historical Jesus never existed is indeed FRINGE/small minority view. Paul tells "Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me..."). But why Paul believes in this? Because this is one of many key ideas promoted by the Soviet propaganda. And I think Paul does the same on all pages, including subjects related to Eastern Europe, i.e. he promotes various pro-Soviet biases on all pages. I tried to work with him, but could not. I end up avoiding any pages that he edits and submitting this request at WP:AE, without any result. Please see my comments in discussions below. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature, though Paul should back off, take a deep breath, study the relevant sources, and come back with a concrete and concise proposal. I will also note that having looked at some of sources allegedly supporting the labelling of the Christ myth hyopethesis as a "fringe theory" (bandied about here, on RSN, and on the article talk page) - I am entirely unconvinced as the sources, per my reading, do not use that language (they do support the notion that full out myth is a minority position, but minority does not mean WP:FRINGE).Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Icewhiz, at the risk of being off topic, have you looked at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/FAQ? Particularly the list of books makes it clear there aren't any actual scholars in the field who support the myth theory.--Ermenrich (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I reviewed the citations themselves - they support this is a distinct minority position - however they do no go as far as calling this a "fringe theory" - which is a very strong assertion which we should not be using unless strong sources spell this out as "fringe", "conspiracy", etc. Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
      • What about this source here [172]? Quote: "Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." (p. 312).--Ermenrich (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't have access to it at the moment (probably will in a few days on a different computer) - need to see context, however that seems to be a response to Richard Carrier's writings (and such responses can be heated also within academia) - and - I would say that the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus is perhaps not the most neutral venue here. That being said - this particular source is better than the ones I've reviewed in Christ myth theory in that the quote you provide does use "fringe". I definitely agree that current consensus is that there was probably (a qualification used for many ancient figures) a historical Jesus of some (varying) sort. I just think that if we are to "fringe theory" label this in articles lead (a-la Moon landing conspiracy theories) - we need strong sources asserting fringe/conspiracy status. Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• As an additional comment, I want to say that there has been a refusal to hear from the other side as well. A refusal that is definitely partly responsible for this escalation. When Paul Siebert asked for sources, they got "the sources are in the article", when indeed some sources had been present before the rewrite(this much is evident from the history of the article) and there was zero effort in showing that the sources actually supported their arguments. While Paul Siebert did discuss a good number of sources they linked the rest of the editors did not link a single source to support their argument during the entire discussion!.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be 100% honest here. To someone with even a little bit of knowledge of Roman history the idea of denying Jesus historicity is the equivalent of "flat earthing" that's why no one bothered to do more than direct him to the general overview of the subject with all the sources he would need did he bothered to read it with an open mind. Why should we feel obligated to educte a stonewall on something so clearly universally acepted when all the sources are already there for him to look trought? Heck, a google search should have been enough, but no, he insisted on pestering people and insulting them. He can't even take responsibility over his bad faith, still pretending that he didn't mean anything by "your beloved gospels".★Trekker (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Lurking shadow -- Yes, they did. They repeatedly linked to entire Wikipedia articles full of reliable source citations. There is no need to provide individual refuting sources for a fairly preposterous WP:FRINGE belief, when nearly the entire body of scholarship already refutes it. And editors know better than to fan the flames of nonsensical debate by offering only one or two sources and thus continuing the already massive and unnecessary discussion ad infinitum. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. He does not understand how consensus works, but to me the most annoying things about him is that he deliberately misrepresents other editors' arguments. Initially, I was only for a limited ban, but after seeing @My very best wishes: post above, I think it is better to entirely remove him from these topics, just to shield other editors from his huge stonewalls. T8612 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. You should check involvement of Paul at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. That's a killing of [time of] wikipedia contributors. I left it for good. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have not read it yet, but allow me to make a "wild guess" My very best wishes, Mr. Siebert is perhaps a bit of a communism apologist maybe?★Trekker (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this user pushes pro-Soviet propaganda/views on all pages, from Gulag and Gas van to Jesus Christ. He is probably the most relentless "civil POV-pusher" I have seen in the project. You think he will be topic banned? Think again. You should be happy that Christianity is not the major area of his interest. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, 331 edits to Talk:Gulag, 563 edits to Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact, 3302 to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. It is unbelievable. T8612 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed. However, the problem is not only the number of edits, but POV-pushing. OK, these subjects are big and complicated. Let's take a small a simple page, like Gas van, see discussion here. I argue that a book by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, KGB: The State Within a State. should be used as a scholarly book that tells something exactly on the subject, along with other sources. This should be simple, right? Wrong. An extremely long discussion follows, after which I am leaving this page to never edit it again, simply because I am tired (see also this part: Paul fight with every author who does not fit his POV, even a Nober Prize winner; the discussion includes some Russian texts; Paul is a native speaker, just like me). The "winner" happily removes the reference to the book, along with direct quotation from the book [173], and he does it with false/misleading edit summary (no, the book by Albats does NOT "cite the same tabloid paper"). That is what Paul do on many pages. That was the reason for my WP:AE report [174]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Paul Siebert's most recent comments ("Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me. I was surprised to learn it is not a fringe theory. I still got no evidences that the opposite theory (a.k.a. Jesus myth theory) is fringe, however, I was surprised to learn that many scholars writing about Christ are still sharing some idea with believers. Since a direct google scholar search gives a lot of references to various religious and theological writings, my analysis of what view is majority, minority or fringe has not been finished yet, however, my preliminary conclusion is that the theory that you call "Jesus myth theory" is by no means fringe.", "I still haven't got a ultimate answer for myself on how exactly I am going to edit Christianity related articles." etc.) suggest he is still in the midst of acquainting himself with the content he so fervently contended. It seems he needs he needs to learn from this episode that he should do proper research before 1. demanding other editors justify the current state of a Wikipedia article, 2. talking about rewriting an article / undoing major changes, and 3. coming up with theories like "people who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians". Robby.is.on (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I'm persuaded by Aquillion's arguments, particularly that a topic ban shouldn't be used for "jesus, why won't he shut up?" It takes multiple editors to create a talk page wall of text. If editors don't want to engage with him, they can just ... not engage with him. If he makes a terrible proposal on a talk page, !vote oppose, state your reasons, and be done with it. There's little need for back-and-forth unless you want to engage in back-and-forth; but no one is forced to do that. – Levivich 05:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • He was pretty clearly threatening to impose his fringe stuff on tons of articles. How exactly are people supposed to stop him by not engaging him?★Trekker (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Suppose PS makes an edit someone disagrees with. It can be reverted. If PS reinstates it without consensus, that would be edit warring and could be reported to ANEW. Suppose PS doesn't edit war and instead posts a proposal on the talk page to gain consensus for the challenged edit. Editors who disagree can !vote oppose. One post from each editor, !voting oppose with their reasons, is all that would be needed. Suppose PS responds to those !votes with counterarguments. Editors can ignore those responses if they wish. If the proposal is widely opposed and nobody engages in extended back-and-forth, there will be no mainspace edits without consensus and no talk page walls of text. Problem solved? – Levivich 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
      • He couldn't accept it when everyone told him he was wrong on Pontius Pilate's talkpage, he can't even be honest about how he treats people and consensus on this very page. How can we assume it would be any better in any other discussion on the topic? I'm not demanding he be banned, but I want people to come with better reasonsings that "well the complaints are just that he's annoying", because him being annoying is only about 50% of the overall problem.★Trekker (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Although I prefer to respond in a separate section, this time I respond here for sake of my peers convenience. ★Trekker, those responses were de facto not responses at all, because they didn't cite any sources and provided almost zero rationale. To see the example of a real response, look at this. That is a type of arguments I was expecting to see. Had Ermenrich responded in this way from the very beginning, there would be no conflict at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
          • He didn't respond that way originally because what you were propossing was utterly laughable.★Trekker (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIR, WP:PROFRINGE, and other such policies and guidelines. If someone is continually disrupting a talkpage(s) against consensus, and/or threatening to take their WP:FRINGE promotion to all other related articles, and/or threatening to unilaterally revert to their preferred version of an article if people stop refuting him, and/or driving good editors away, that is very clearly disruptive and highly detrimental to the project. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose topic ban as per Aquillion. Paul is opinionated, but he is a dedicated editor, not a disrupter.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIR, WP:PROFRINGE, and other such policies and guidelines. If someone is continually disrupting a talkpage(s) against consensus, and/or threatening to take their WP:FRINGE promotion to all other related articles, and/or threatening to unilaterally revert to their preferred version of an article if people stop refuting him, and/or driving good editors away, that is very clearly disruptive and highly detrimental to the project. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I am cited far above (because I commented at Talk:Pontius Pilate) and I think I may possibly be grouped by Paul among those who wrote to criticise his comments on the basis of what other people said. If so, Paul, I'm only a tiny bit hurt :) I hesitated to comment here at all. I found the discussion on that talk page almost entirely off topic, and Paul (among others) led it that way. What would I do? I would advise him to leave Pontius Pilate to others for a while and I would suggest a bit more reading among authors who take varied views of the historicity of Jesus. Andrew Dalby 11:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed and consider extending it to the Soviet Union and communism, broadly construed. What has been demonstrated here is relentless and persistent POV-pushing that has driven people away from the project. I have no faith in this user to constructively contribute to this project Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I too think that he should also be banned from Communism/USSR. His edits on these talk pages are absolutely unreal. T8612 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• (I already commented above but adding this after some further consideration). Oppose topic ban. Paul's pattern of long talk page discussions is not limited to this topic so if it is a problem, and it might be, it is not one that a topic ban would solve. Paul has an unusual contribution pattern with 64% article talk and 15% on main.[175] Maybe he should reconsider his approach. But Christianity in particular is not the issue. Haukur (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So what do you propose to make him stop? Permaban? T8612 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know! Maybe nothing for now. But ANI is also poorly equipped to handle big picture long-term issues like this which might require a lot of analysis to get right. Haukur (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you feel there's a better venue for such discussions? (I don't plan on taking it up, I'm just curious. I'm still pretty ignorant about the various options for dealing with behavioral options on Wikipedia).--Ermenrich (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if ANI cannot solve a supposed problem then the next(and last) step is arbitration.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a long standing block? He seems to have been able to do good work on the site despite his biases. Maybe if he got some time off he would realize he needs change his ways.★Trekker (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• I doubt that Paul will be sanctioned. This is the case when different people had very different experience while interacting with Paul. That's because he is very careful, especially when he speaks with admins like Nick-D. My experience was very negative. While interacting with me, he was not shy to summarily dismiss several very strong RS based on his WP:OR [176]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In that case those Admins need to check themselves and not let their personal feelings towards him get in the way of their duties.★Trekker (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I fulfilled my duty by submitting an AE report. Admins decided not to act. Now this is problem of community. But I am out. Time is up, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban For three reasons 1) I'm concerned that this has been motivated by, to be blunt, incorrect assessments of Paul's pattern of contributions and some kind of weird bias against talk page posts (what's wrong with frequently joining discussions on talk pages?) 2) there's something of a "closed shop" mentality in the discussions at the top of this thread, with a small number of editors trying to claim that there's a consensus among scholars which other editors are pointing out doesn't actually exist (e.g., that it is probably not "fringe" to say that Jesus never existed, though it's very much a minority view) 3) This is premature: Paul is an excellent editor in good standing, and I'm confident that he'll reflect on this discussion and correct any problems with his contributions. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This is kinda fascinating in a disturbing way. Some people want him to get off scot-free, no nothing. Others want him wholesale banned from Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see my point 3: I'm pretty sure Paul is capable of taking feedback on board. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to do with what I said.★Trekker (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"[W]hat's wrong with frequently joining discussions on talk pages?" Please read WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIR, WP:PROFRINGE, and other such policies and guidelines. If someone is continually disrupting a talkpage(s) against consensus, and/or threatening to take their WP:FRINGE promotion to all other related articles, and/or threatening to unilaterally revert to their preferred version of an article if people stop refuting him, and/or driving good editors away, that is very clearly disruptive and highly detrimental to the project. Softlavender (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Speaking about WWII page, here is the last suggestion by Paul. He tells that our page "creates a wrong impression that Soviet army deliberately stopped to let Nazi to suppress the the Warsaw uprising". Well, our page actually tells the following: "The Soviet Red Army remained in the Praga district on the other side of the Vistula and watched passively as the Germans quelled the Warsaw Uprising initiated by the Armia Krajowa". This is a historical fact, and indeed, according to many historians, the Soviet Army deliberately stopped to let Nazi to suppress the uprising. This is the kind of things Paul constantly pushes. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow this is truly shocking. I no longer believe he's even remotely ignorant, this seems like deliberate POV pushing.★Trekker (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm This isn't POV pushing: you both just have no idea what you're talking about. Lots of historians argue this. The Red Army had advanced beyond its supply lines, the Polish uprising was badly timed (they were hoping to pre-empt the Soviets entering the city, but the Soviets had reached their limits and the Germans had a solid defensive position) and making an opposed crossing of a major river is a massive challenge for any army. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm Back at you. He's clearly the POV pushing, rude and gaslighting editor who's had a history of Communist apologism. He uses the benefit of the doubt to try to weasle in stuff.★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but let's check the Encyclopædia Britannica as a good 3rd party encyclopedic source (link): "As the Red Army approached Warsaw (July 29–30, 1944), Soviet authorities, promising aid, encouraged the Polish underground there to stage an uprising against the Germans... Meanwhile, the Red Army, which had been detained during the first days of the insurrection by a German assault, occupied a position at Praga, a suburb across the Vistula River from Warsaw, and remained idle. In addition, the Soviet government refused to allow the western Allies to use Soviet air bases to airlift supplies to the beleaguered Poles.... By allowing the Germans to suppress the Warsaw Uprising, the Soviet authorities also allowed them to eliminate the main body of the military organization that supported the Polish government-in-exile in London. Consequently, when the Soviet army occupied all of Poland, there was little effective organized resistance to its establishing Soviet political domination over the country and imposing the communist-led Provisional Government of Poland (Jan. 1, 1945)." So, according to EB, there is no question that the Soviet side "allowed the Germans to suppress the Warsaw Uprising" My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There's actually a rather large and complex literature on this issue. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, and the views by historians differ. That's why I cited a good quality tertiary source. Such sources do not provide details, but they provide good summary consensus/majority views on a subject. My very best wishes (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Nick-D, I think Britannica may be right, and Stalin really promised to provide some support for the uprising (if he knew about that). That looks realistic. What I meant, the current text implies that Red Army deliberately stopped (deliberately changed its plans) to help Germans to suppress the uprising. That is not the case. As you can see, in my (selectively cited) post I noted that the USSR could probably provide more support, but no evidences exists that they planned to advance to Warsaw and changed the plans due to the uprising. What is more likely that Stalin made a promise that he was not able to fulfill. Or even didn't plan to.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not what EB tells. EB tells it was a deliberate, logical and successful action planned by the Soviet side (obviously, the plan had to be suggested or approved by Stalin). My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, that is exactly my understanding of events as well. Gerhard Weinberg writes about this in great detail in A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II (one of my favorite reads!). CThomas³ (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban: the case for the sanction is not convincing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to elaborate Coffman? I really value your input around WWII topics, and this user seems to be doing worrying things to Soviet related pages.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban at the least. If only he could be banned from typing anything more than one plain sentence one time only into any talk page. How much time has been taken by the above and the interminable talk page rows that have been brewed up ALL OVER WP? It's a full time job just to keep up with it, the volume of verbiage, comment and circular discussion that has contributed not one byte to the project itself is frankly depressing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What's the matter with Paul's talk page contributions on, say, World War II-related topics? I've been in tons of discussions with him in this space over several years, and have always appreciated them. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history per User:Ad_Orientem and User:T8612. This kind of problematic behavior is exhausting to other editors, and does in fact drive them away from the affected articles, as User:Toa Nidhiki05 and User:My very best wishes have shown. They've also shown that PS's problematic behavior isn't limited to this one article. I'm not convinced by Aquillion's oppose. The walls of text obscure WP:CONSENSUS, especially if the correct side chooses to stop responding. It's clear from the discussion that PS wants to push a fringe view in this topic and his edits are very unlikely to be productive. Without a WP:TBAN, this will require a lot of effort from other editors to monitor and repair. While theoretically other editors could just do that work, I don't really see any good reason why they should have to waste their time on something like that. Also, given the large number of obscure articles in this topic, they probably can't even be successful at that. The best outcome is that PS refrain from editing in this topic, and given his WP:IDHT, it's best for the project that it be enforced by a WP:TBAN. There are some other issues, but a TBAN will hopefully solve the problem by removing the motivation. - GretLomborg (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed. This editor clearly is falling foul of WP:DISRUPT, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV etc. His disruptive editing is causing an enormous drain on multiple editors who, as a result, have much less time to productively edit the encyclopedia because of this disruptive POV pushing drama.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. To those wondering if Paul is going to go through with his promise to rewrite these articles, I'd like to call your attention to the following two diffs [177] [178]. While it's possible that that article could have been worded better, I think in the context of everything that's been brought up here so far it's rather worrying.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes. Unless he receives the topic ban, Paul will probably rewrite these pages, and there is little you can do about it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

They have backed up their claim with a source. As long as you cannot convince me that they have deliberately or recklessly misrepresented the source or the sourcing situation I see no cause for action.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

We also need to set a pretty high bar before calling a living person a prominent believer in fringe theories. The claim that this person is fringe does not appear to have a specific citation - the quote to Gullotta included in the reference does not appear to support the claim that this person is noting less than "a leading supporter of a fringe" theory. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Christianity; broadly construed and A keen eye kept on the editor in question to ensure the behavior is not merely relocated. Paul is far from the first editor who generates reams of talk page content ad nauseum - and yes, it's invariably deemed disruptive, though how long it takes for the disruptiveness to get sanctioned mostly depends on the size of the fanclub of the prodigous-text-generator. And yes, there are always a few (or a few more than a few) editors who declare that there's no rule against long posts on talk page - which is irrelevant, as it's more the content of the posts than their length. Paul's disruptiveness is well documented throughout this entire mess, which is really beginning to give me Brews O'Hare flashbacks. Seth Kellerman (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC). And taking the grandstanding and bloviating below into account, support full site ban with the broadly construed topic ban on Christianity as a mere minimum. Seth Kellerman (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Here is the latest discussion initiated by Paul. Everyone makes mistakes and may not know the subject. That's fine. However, after receiving strong objections from several other contributors on the talk page, a dissenter (Paul in this case) has two choices: (a) to study better this subject, or (b) go edit something else. What should NOT happen is a prolonged and contentious dispute with other contributors who know this subject better. This is a mistake sometimes made by newbies. However, Paul has an enormous experience on wiki. He does it because this is his "modus operandi" on all pages. I think he has certain New Soviet manish biases (note his mentioning of Bulgakov on the talk page about Pontius Pilate), and fights literally to death to promote these biases on all pages he edits. This is simply a more obvious example. As about Brews O'Hare, yes, I too thought about Brews, but he was a lot nicer than Paul. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Brews was far nicer than Paul, but what really made me think of that situation was how they both have a small group of editors who are adamantly denying, all evidence to the contrary, that there is anything at all wrong with Paul's conduct - and they're doing it loudly and frequently enough that it's 1) going to give any admin attempting to close this mess pause, 2) give the impression of 'no consensus' to anyone who only wants to skim this instead of actually reading it. Seth Kellerman (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Second proposal: Warning

If there is not consensus for a TBAN (which I think there may in the end still be, but assuming the first proposal fails), would there be consensus for issuing some sort of warning? This could then be referenced in any future action at ANI assuming Paul Siebert continues this behavior/spreads it to other Jesus-related articles, as he seems to intend.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I am a little bit puzzled about the possible text of that warning. What this warning should be about? To print less characters? Talk page guidelines set no limits. Not to call someone Christian? Actually, it is easy to implement, but will it have any positive effect, taking into account that I actually didn't do that?

The important result of this discussion is this your post. I am not sure if this argument is strong (I am figuring it out currently), but it is done in a correct way. That is a type of arguments I was expecting to see from you from the very beginning, because this type arguments are used on talk pages I am usually working on. Had you responded in this way from the very beginning, there would be no conflict at all, or the discussion would be much more brief. If you will be sticking to this way of communication, there will be virtually no conflicts in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are not obliged to prove to you that a fringe theory is fringe when you continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian. Icewhiz suggested that the Christ myth theory might be minority, not fringe, and I countered with a RS calling it fringe. Note he says he actually looked at what the sources cited at Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory said before though. This is different than you assuming you are right on the matter and ignoring literally everyone telling you that you were mistaken.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see diffs demonstrating that I "continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian". That statement is weird, because virtually no sources were presented during that discussion.

Anyway, Iv'e just demonstrated you a possible exit from an impasse: I am openly saying "Your last argument was good, and it is supported by a reasonably good quality source. I am not sure it is strong, but, at least, it is addressable. If you continue is this vein I am pretty certain there hardly will be conflicts in future." I think, if your real goal is not an escalation of a conflict (I hope it isn't), the conflict may be considered resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And, regarding your comment on Icewhiz: I also looked at that page, and I found it was poorly written. However, as I already explained to you, to direct your opponent to some Wikipedia page (in this tone) is a kind of disrespect: you were supposed to provide a concrete reference and a quote (as you have done above). Before claiming your opponent is not prone to arguments, make sure your arguments are presented in a correct way. Anyway, I hope we started to understand each other better. Can we conclude the conflict is resolved?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

See [179], [180], [181], [182]. I named specific sources from the article bibliography multiple times without any coherent response from you except to say that a passage in Tacitus is fabricated, based on one article by Richard Carrier, and to insist that Jesus is a mythical being without any historical existence.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

the first diff relates to Bond: I posted a question on RSN, and that cannot be interpreted as I dismissed a source. My conclusion was that the source was not good not because it is Christian, but because Bond just briefly mentions this fact in the introduction. That was by no means a detailed analysis of the issue. Other three diffs contain no references at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

For the last time: I was never debating with you about a passage in Tacitus. Whether it is authentic or inauthentic was entirely immaterial to the discussion: we are talking about your allegations that I dismiss sources because they are "Christian". I mention several other authors in those posts. You never once replied on any of them.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Tacitus is irrelevant to this discussion. Why are you returning to this issue again? Are you interested to end this conflict or not?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, you mentioned Alexander Demandt, Helen Bond, and Daniel Schwartz. I picked Bond for more detailed analysis because you quoted her, and I rejected it because she left the question of authenticity beyond the scope. But I didn't reject her because she was "Christian". By the way, do you realise that the very structure of Bond's work is close to what I proposed? She clearly separated a discussion of the Gospels and non-Christian sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you read what you yourself wrote? My conclusion was that the source was not good not because it is Christian, but because Bond just briefly mentions this fact in the introduction. You specific asked in the RFN In her PhD thesis, Helen Bond says that the Annals 15.44 are an independent source about crucifixion of Jesus, along with four Gospels. And again Icewhiz, the question is not if this passage is being attributed to Tacitus (I think noone doubts in that). The question is if this source is reliable to support a claim there is a consensus that this passage is authentic. You did not ask if it was a reliable source for the historical existence of Jesus, and given that both people who responded said it was per se a RS, what answer do you think you would have gotten? If I include sources that find the existence of Jesus so uncontroversial that they don't need to prove it, don't you think you ought to have rethought your position somewhat?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this your post sidetracks the discussion. Your original point was that I "continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian". As a support for this claim, you provided the example where ONE source was dismissed by me, and the argument that is was a PhD in Theology was just one of many. Don't you find your evidences shaky?

Let's stay focused on the main topic.

• When my vis-s-vis provide a concrete reference and a concrete quote that demonstrate their point, I always take such argument seriously.
• When someone says "I am telling you for the fourth time you are wrong", I consider no arguments were presented.
• When someone says "Read John Smith", I may either respond to it or ignore it, because the argumentation of that kind shows one's disrespect and does not indicate one's serious attitude to the issue. If Icewhiz does not feel offended in such situation, that is a sign of his very good faith. He is absolutely not obliged to take such arguments seriously. In addition, responces to such posts take more efforts and are intrinsically longer. Remember, one of the accusations thrown against me was the length of my posts; had I responded to all of that, my posts would be even longer.
• Finally, I already told you that this your post is an example of GOOD argumentation. What else do you need?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not taking lessons in you on good argumentation. You're amply showing why I think at least a warning is necessary.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not giving lessons, I am explaining what I see as a good argumentation, bad argumentation and lack of argumentation. I am explaining my position in an attempt to avoid conflicts in future. If you cannot understand that, then, probably, one party really needs a warning. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert and Ermenrich: You both need to stop trying to bludgeon the life out of this discussion and let the community review the situation. GoldenRing (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I find it hard not to reply, but I will resist that urge from now on. I hope other people will consider my second proposal though.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I myself realized the discussion has come to a logical end. I will be busy during next two weeks, please inform me if there will be any news deserving my attention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You said the same thing yesterday, I doubt this will end anytime soon in all actuality. But I hope for everyones sanity that there can be a beneficial result in some way.★Trekker (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The user has had warnings galore, including from administrators, and he is still endlessly engaging in WP:DE and WP:TE. He has already driven good editors away from various talkpages. He has made it very clear, in a number of venues, that he is not going to stop his endless crusade promoting his current pet WP:FRINGE theory. The only way we can prevent further disruption to the project, and it is indeed disruption, is to issue a sanction of some sort. That's not even counting his CIR and DE/TE tendencies on numerous other unrelated talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I think he has had one warning, from Doug Weller. I dont know of any others.--Ermenrich (talk)

Not true. He had 4 warnings on Talk:Pontius Pilate: [183], [184], [185], [186]; and 3 warnings on his own talk page: [187], [188], [189]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose warning – PS has already been issued a warning by Doug Weller on July 31, and hasn't done anything since then to merit another warning. He says he'll be away for two weeks, and has already said he will stop with the TLDR posts because they're not effective. In my view, Doug already handled this several days ago, and now it's time to close this report and we'll see what happens in two weeks. – Levivich 02:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hardly. If this discussion gets cloased already I will feel it is an insult to Wikipedia's standards. I'm utterly amazed that any user on this site could come to this discussion and not realize there is something very sinister going on with this man. He pushes fringe, thinks he has authority over subjects which he's clearly completely ignorant about, he scares away good editors, he insults people and uses classic gaslighting techniques. Oh and lets not forget the communism apologetics.★Trekker (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

As someone who came on board with this discussion because I was alarmed by what Mr. Siebert seemed to be saying about sources, bias, and the desirability of making wholesale revisions to all project pages concerning the historicity of Jesus to reflect an unscholarly point of view, I feel somewhat reluctantly compelled to ask my friends from WP:CGR and related projects to put down their sticks and avoid becoming the ones whose demands appear unreasonable. I think we nearly all agree that what Mr. Siebert proposed to do would have been inappropriate and against consensus—both Wikipedian and scholarly. But none of these proposed changes was ever implemented on the article that originally brought us here, or by Mr. Siebert in any other article. All of this hullabaloo has taken place on talk pages, and concerns something purely hypothetical. There is no threat to the encyclopedia. If Mr. Siebert wants to edit the articles in question, which is his right, then there are plenty of editors here who can look over the changes, and refactor or revert any edits that need it. It's just that easy. There's no need to ask for topic bans or other administrative sanctions for something that hasn't happened and may never happen, as long as whatever is done is subject to the review of other editors. From my point of view, we can revisit this discussion if and when Mr. Siebert's edits become not just imperfect, but disruptive. If the only issue is how much weight to give certain theories, or where they should be mentioned, I think we can handle it without invoking Thor's hammer. P Aculeius (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I actually kind of agree that some of the discussion has gotten a little out of hand here. I do wish we could agree to just give him a slap on the wrist or something, but at this point I'm just waiting to see if anyone else wants to chime in on the TBAN/warning so we can wrap this up. It's all been rather exhausting.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree, his actions so far seem to be very dangerous. I wouldn't trust this man around any of the topics we've covered so far.★Trekker (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What danger would that be? The risk that he might make edits that go against the consensus of other editors? We deal with that all the time without bothering the admins. We know he's editing in good faith, unlike countless vandals, so some of his edits might be perfectly fine. Others may only need a little tweaking. Even reverting an edit that makes no sense only takes a minute. And this place will still be open if and when we really need it. I'm not asking anyone to trust anyone else. Just treat this situation like any other. There's a perfectly good stick rack over there in the corner. P Aculeius (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I already pointed out thousands of times already all the things which I have said he does which is hugely disruptive. If you're going to try to claim "oh he's just going agains concesus, not a big deal" (big deal to me) and try to claim this situation is not worth admins time I don't know what you've been readin so far.★Trekker (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What cases are worth admins time if a large controversial one like this one isn't?★Trekker (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Something that shows some more serious "disruption" than just one argument, one topic, almost entirely confined to one talk section, with no edit-warring involved. Just off the top of my head, things that would actually make this worth the time and effort would include edit-warring on talk to re-open a closed discussion; trying to edit the article without consensus (of course); opening large numbers of redundant discussions; and otherwise generally making it impossible for other people to just walk away. But the idea that a consensus on talk forbids people from simply continuing to reply strikes me as a bridge too far, especially since there are numerous options for ending a discussion that nobody involved seems to have attempted yet. Again, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the purpose here is to ask for administrative confirmation that you have "won" the argument or that Siebert is wrong on the facts, which isn't the purpose of ANI. Nothing seems to be preventing you from hatting the section, starting an RFC, or even just walking away, then letting everyone else move on with their lives; so if this really is as disruptive as you say (which I still think is silly), you seem to be as responsible for it as Siebert is. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Closing adminFinal remarks

I got a brief access to Internet, and I am going to make an important statement in close future that will resolve the issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 1. I am bringing my apologies

Following the Ermenrich's advice, I examined the writings of some authors cited in Wikipedia articles on that topic, and I believe I understand now that Ii made one serious mistake. The author who convinced me in that is Bart D. Ehrman, an expert whose reliability all participants of this discussion trust (I hope). His book is cited in the article about Richard Carrier (ref 8). Unfortunately, I got no access to the above book, but I found another Bart's book by Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. I am also agree that he is a good scholar and, importantly, an intellectually honest person (I'll explain later why I came to this conclusion), so I also take his words seriously. In the introduction to this book, he writes (sorry for a long quote, but it is relevant):

"Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?But the questions kept coming, and soon I began to wonder: Why are so many people asking?

My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles—misquoted rather—as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, and the history of the church’s first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware—as are most of my colleagues in the field—of this body of skeptical literature.

"I should say at the outset that none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature out there, some of it highly intelligent and well informed, makes this case. "

These words convinced me that my words about users who are pushing Christian propaganda were totally silly, and I sincerely apologize for that. I fully agree with Cullen³²⁸'s comment, but please, take into account that by the moment I wrote those wrong and inaccurate words, I was unfamiliar with Bart's writings, so this my mistake was understandable and forgivable. Again, I am bringing my sincere apologies.

Part 2. I am expecting apologies

Below is a continuation of the quote from Ehrman. Again, I apologise for a long quote, but I believe it is important to demonstrate I didn't take his words out of context. Ehrman writes:

" These sundry books and articles (not to mention websites) are of varying quality. Some of them rival The Da Vinci Codein their passion for conspiracy and the shallowness of their historical knowledge, not just of the New Testament and early Christianity, but of ancient religions generally and, even more broadly, the ancient world. But a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament—have taken this position and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice. Once you tune in to this voice, you quickly learn just how persistent and vociferous it can be.And the voice is being heard loud and clear in some places. Even a quick Internet search reveals how influential such radical skepticism has been in the past and how rapidly it is spreading even now. For decades it was the dominant view in countries such as the Soviet Union. Yet more striking, it appears to be the majority view in some regions of the West today, including some parts of Scandinavia."

I believe these words are a proof that it is absolutely incorrect to call Jesus Myth Theory (a.k.a. JMT) fringe: even a notable proponent of the opposite view says it is not the case, and he even concedes that JMT is a majority view in some parts of the Western world, and its popularity is growing.

Obviously, since to prove negative (namely, to debunk the claim that JMT is fringe) is much easier that to prove positive, and ONE good source saying that JMT is not fringe is quite sufficient for that, I have sustained my burden of evidence per WP:V.

In connection to that, I expect all users who cited WP:FRINGE or CIR during their !vote (namely, Softlavender, Ermenrich, Ad Orientem, bonadea, Amakuru, Nosebagbear, T8612, Toa , Alexandermcnabb, GretLomborg, Literaturegeek | T@1k?, Seth Kellermanto withdraw their votes and explicitly apologize, for their assertions were based on a false premise and contradicted to what a reliable source says. I am sure you sincerely believed JMT was fringe, so I am not accusing you of bad faith. However, now, when you have been informed about that your mistake, you owe me apologies.

Let me make a stress on Ehrman's words: "Even a quick Internet search reveals". What does it means? It means that the above mentioned users didn't bothered to do even a quick Internet search to verify that CMT is not fringe, which cast a doubt on their competence. Taking into account that some of them threw CIR accusations against me, that sounds weird. I reject a possibility that they knew they that CMT was not fringe and were acting in a bad faith, and their sincere apologies will reaffirm me in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

He’s clearly referring to popular option, not academics. Keep digging your hole, man. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Re-read this sentence:

"Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

All books are not written by academics. Anyone can write a darn book and spout whatever they like.★Trekker (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament" They do not belong to the same field as Ehrman, but they are definitely academics. In addition, my task was just to prove negative, which I have successfully done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I also cited FRINGE. And I don't feel very compelled to apologize.★Trekker (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't vote, but your apologies are warmly welcome.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

He didn't apologize. Nor does that quote support what you say, as it's clearly about popular opinion, as Nidhik says.

I won't apologize for invoking WP:FRINGE, as I disagree rather strongly with your interpretation of the passage above. But I do apologize for anything else I might have said that was hurtful. Things have gotten rather heated.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I meant, his apologies would be very welcome.

Regarding the rest, I presented the words of a prominent supporter of the theory of histricity of Jesus, who (i) concedes that the JMT is a minority but a notable viewpoint that is a majority view in some parts of the West, and (ii) he, as well as many Christian scholar was unaware of that fact. Obviously, that means that Christian scholars work in isolation, and Ehrman's view gives as just a lower margin: CMT is at least a significant minority view. I see absolutely no possibility for a double interpretation. Anyway, you may disagree, but this my interpretation deserves a serious consideration, and if you ignore it, we have a serious CIR issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman isn't a Christian.--Ermenrich (talk)

I meant not his religion but the scope of his interests.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Your gall is boundless. Stop it man. T8612 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 3. Ermenrich. To be continued.

I suggest you to look at that. Briefly, I found the statement in one BLP article that the living person is a fringe theorist. When I examined some sources cited in this article, I found that this statement is at least controversial, so must be immediately removed per WP:BLP I was obliged to immediately remove this contentious material waiting for discussion, which I did. In addition, as an act of a good faith, I explained that on a talk page and made my best to inform users who decided to restore this material about possible BLP sanctions.

In that situation, Ermenrich had three options:

1. To revert me, which would lead to an ANI report per BLP. However, if Ermenrich is confident JMT is fringe, that report wouldn't do any harm to them, and just demonstrated that this user is ready to take risk, but they sincerely believe their POV is a majority view.
2. To refrain from revert, and to concede that the claim that JMT is fringe is probably contenious, because it cannot be placed in BLP articles. That would demonstrate Ermenrich is intellecually honest.
3. Instead, Ermenrich decided to go the third way: they appeared to be not brave enough to revert what they believe an obvious PROFRINGE edit, and presented this story as an argument against me on this page. This step is hard to explain assuming this user is intellecually honest, like Ehrman. This shakes my believe in his good faith. I would be glad to see the evidence of the opposite, so Ermenrich's explanations are welcome here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This completely mischaracterizes what happened.I posted a neutrally-worded mention of the discussion at Talk:Historicity of Jesus [190]. I did not ask anyone to revert your edit or warn you, but if you're going to challenge the existing consensus it shouldn't be done article by article, as I state here, informing the talk page that I'd mentioned it at Historicity of Jesus. [191]. I am not an expert on this topic, nor do I hope to ever have much dealing with it (or you) again after this ANI is over.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

May be. But the absolutely non-neutral post at ANI completely disproves your above statement and cast a dark shadow on your reputation of a good faith user.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

the information was relevant to the discussion and if anyone disagreed about my concerns they were free to voice them. I even admitted that there may have been a problem at the article as it was written. You're reaching here just like you did when you tried to accuse me of WP:OWN.--Ermenrich (talk)

Part 4. Seth Kellerman's note

From to this post, I conclude that I am not the first user who has been attacked by a group of users sharing the same view. Since this situation poses a danger to Wikipedia, I am contemplating a possibility to file a request against the users who are listed above. I think it would be correct to ban those users from commenting on ANI when they are not parties (i.e. when they are not reporting or they have not been reported), per CIR. This is not an act of retaliation (I am pretty capable of defending myself), this is aimed to protect other users who express minority but not fringe views. That is why, as an act of my good faith, I am proposing the above users to apologize and to promise they will reconsider their approach to dispute resolution in future, and will take the arguments from others more seriously.

I am pretty sure this situation reached the point when ArbCom will take this case for consideration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 5. BLP violation

The case described in the Part 3 definitely deserves ANI as WP:BLP violation. I removed this material again, and in the case if this content will be restored I'll report that user on ANI. That is not my habit to go to ANI, I prefer to persuade people on talk pages instead, however, since many people complain I am making to many posts, I'll try to change my strategy.

By the way, in the unlikely case if the contentious material about Carrier will be restored, and the case will go to ANI, we will easily see if CMT is fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• The End.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm really sorry, but it's late here in the UAE so I feel I must just intercede for a moment before I leave. I'm not being insulting and intent no disparagement, but I honestly believe this is really not normal and should be, in the interests of everyone here, shut down right now. That's just IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

+1. I have no words. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm a little confused now. What exactly demands that the ANI is over now?★Trekker (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

He is saying [192] that unless everyone will apologize to him, he will complain about you all to the Arbitration Committee. I do not think he is serious. This is just a threat. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What would happen if it went to ArbCom exactly? I've never been involved in one of those cases.★Trekker (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe if this will go there, I'll request ArbCom to impose the above described editing restrictions on all above mentioned users (and probably on you). That will not prevent you from editing, will not prevent you from filing reports on any noticeboards, and from defending yourselves when you are reported. However, you will not be allowed to support accusations thrown by others, for the above mentioned users demonstrated they are ready to support their fellow editors against those who has different POV without bothering to check factual accuracy of the evidenced presented. I believe you understand that is not a threat and not an act of retaliation. That is an attempt to protect other users from unjustified attacks by not sufficiently competent users. Again, it is easy to avoid by bringing apologies and promising to do careful analysis of evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I was asking in general what a ArbCom is for, not what you would want to happen.★Trekker (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn’t going to ArbCom. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It may not go if apologies will be brought. Otherwise I'll submit it to ArbCom, and the arbitrators will vote if they are taking it for closer consideration. Then each parties presents their evidences, after that the ArbCome will make their decision. I again losing access to a computer, so I am done. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I get wasting time on enormous walls of text is your thing, but that’s not going to work here. You’re not going to threaten anyone into doing anything. Empty threats are empty threats. Toa Nidhiki05 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You can't extort people for apologies, they need to be genuine to be worth anything.★Trekker (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Damn, you are right! I didn't think about that. Anyway, I expect my opponents to demonstrate a capability of accepting arguments, and a capability of presenting something more substantial than "you are acting against consensus". I am not expecting you to agree with me, but I expect arguments similar to the one presented by Joshua Jonathan. Otherwise you are disruptive, and your opinion has a zero weight.--20:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you know it's true why are you trying to threaten people into giving you apologies?★Trekker (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Labelling Richard Carrier as a "fringe" supporter, in the lead no less, is indeed a serious issue - and should be discussed at BLP/n - and absent strong supporting sources would be actionable at AE - you don't need ARBCOM as all BLPs are under DS. .Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to go to ArbCom regarding Carrier. By the way, we are discussing a violation that has not happened yet: this material has not been restored so far.

By the way, Icewhiz, is the topic as whole under DS?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

All living people are.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Alexandermcnabb, apologies taken. :-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

CMT is definitely fringe. See Christ myth theory#Scholarly reception and Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 30#Once Again (sigh), It Seems that I need to Post This - Sources Saying that "most scholars agree". And believe me, I know. I love that theory, I'm the main contributor to the CMT-article (1,420 edits so far, sorry, sorry...), but CMT has no place whatsoever in the works of people like James Dunn (theologian) (Jesus Remembered] and Larry Hurtado (Lord Jesus Christ)(compare the number of citations for Carrier's books). The real reserach-questions are: what do the (Christian) sources tell us about Jesus, and how do we know what they tell us; and how did Christianity evolve from the man Jesus to the messianic Jewish movement from which the Christian tradition evolved? Regarding the second question, the main (naturalistic) explanation is that Jesus had a profound impact on his followers, who had strong religious experiences after Jesus' death, mixed with an inspired reading of the scriptures, which convinced them that Jesus was (the first) risen from the dead, heralding the onset of the endtime and the coming of God's Kingdom. This is basically what Dunn and Hurtado, both Christians, but also others, argue; it's a view that's offensive for 'orthodox' Christians. And yes, religious experiences and inspired reading are the stuff of mythology and faith; but that Jesus existed is the mainstream answer to the first question, while only a few authors conclude question one with the answer that Jesus never existed at all. And note, the literature on the origins on Christianity is so overwhelming, that Dunn lamented that even for professionals like him it's virtually impossible to keep on track with everything that's published. In this flood of publications, no CMT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I will gladly discuss it with you later, when I finish reading on that subject. However, the data I found so far show that that theory seems rather popular among agnostics and leftist intellectuals (including scholars). As we can conclude from Ehrman's words (cited above), the scholars who study the Gospels seem to work in isolation from others, and they are not aware of opinion os historians who study a history of ancient Middle East from other perspectives. That situation is not uncommon: I already saw similar examples in genocide studies and other topics. Again, my opinion may change depending on what I find (I'll do my best to read the sources you mentioned too), but the question is definitely a subject of a serious and polite debates, not of !vote by persons who hate reading long and thoughtful posts and prefer to take sides without serious considerations. Hopefully, at the end of August I will be able to say something concrete. Good luck.--19:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not true that "As we can conclude from Ehrman's words (cited above), the scholars who study the Gospels seem to work in isolation from others, and they are not aware of opinion os historians who study a history of ancient Middle East from other perspectives." As Ehrman writes on pges 4 and 5 of the very introduction to which you refer, "Serious historians of the early Christain movement - all of them - have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field ... Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things." I hope that this was not conscious misrepresentation on your part, and that the explanation is that you incompetently stopped reading Ehrman's introduction as soon as you found something you misconstrued in your favour. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

While it is possible its just a misreading on Paul's part, I wouldn't put it past him to just assume that anything he reads confirms his belifes. As he said above, he seemingly claims to not even have been aware that non-Christians could belive that Jesus was real. I don't put much stock into how he researches, even if he can site some published source which claims he's great at it.★Trekker (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, he even misrepresents his own writing. He argued "because it is based on just two small passages from Josephus and Tacitus, which are widely recognised anachronisms or later additions. No other evidences (if we do not consider the Gospels reliable) prove Jesus existence, so we have absolutely no ground to claim Jesus ever existed. Therefore, everybody who believes Jesus (the God or just a human) really existed is, to some degree, a Christian."[193] Less than 20 hours later, he claimed "my statement was based on what high quality peer-reviewed source says: it says that the researchers writing about Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers, and, again, that is not my assertion, that is a published fact."[194] It blatantly wasn't. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

He behave similarly on other talk pages, except that on other pages he is usually more familiar with the topic. In the diff above he tells: "everybody who believes Jesus (the God or just a human) really existed is, to some degree, a Christian". That comment alone shows that Paul has no even slightest understanding of this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

When he argues that Tacitus cannot have written about Jesus because Jesus hadn't been invented yet,[195] it seems he lacks either understanding or the ability to reason. He sure can argue, though. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Joshua Jonathan. As a note of order, Paul just started another unhelpful discussion: [196]. There was no any BLP violations at the first place. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Poetry and humor. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Admin's Prayer Our admin who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy encyclopedia come. Thy edits be done, in mainspace as it is in talkspace. Give us this day our daily watchlist, and forgive us our disruptive editing, as we forgive those who edit against consensus, and lead us not into tendentiousness, but deliver us from walls of text. For thine is the toolkit, and the {{atop}}, and the {{abot}}, for ever and ever, Amen. – Levivich 00:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Thanks, I needed that, lol.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Good. Now add ten Hail Jimbos and a Glory BLP, then repeat a bunch of times. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC) That is fun, ha-ha. What is more funny, is that while you are trying to pile more and more arguments about DE and CIR and excercise in humour, a calm, respectful and polite discussion is unfolding between me and Joshua Jonathan, a user who sincerely believes that JMT is fringe (he said he was a major contributor to that article), but who is ready to demonstrate his point with sources and arguments. I beg you not to interfere in this discussion and not to try to derail it, just watch how a real conversation between two persons who respect positions of each other should look like.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Boooooo. No fun. Bring back PastaPaul. No-fun Paul Siebert is no fun.★Trekker (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure if any of that comment is directed at me, but let me assure you I have not read anything above the line that reads "The Admin's Prayer", and do not intend to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposing site ban

Having stayed out of this discussion despite following it, the latest actions by Paul Siebert leads me to conclude the user needs to be banned from Wikipedia, not just topic banned. I'm ignoring the content disputes and the endless walls of text. The two behavioral problems I see repeated are:

• extensive edit warring. Diffs have already been provided above. Paul repeatedly ignores WP:BRD on article after article. He even continues to edit war while under discussion here. If a user cannot refrain from disruptive editing even while discussed at ANI for previous disruptive behaviour, then it seems very likely he will just continue in the same way.
• extreme entitlement. In all my years at WP, I never saw anything as self-entitled as Paul's post here previously today (see above). First saying I'll request ArbCom to impose the above described editing restrictions on all above mentioned users when it's Paul's disruptive editing and possible that users discuss, and then even It may not go if apologies will be brought. Otherwise I'll submit it to ArbCom is just beyond the pale. To me, this is user who feels above everyone else.
  

Combining these two aspects (continuing disruptivhttps://toolsblogs.come editing even when at ANI for disruptive editing, and stating others must apologise to him when he is the one under investigation) shows a user unable to cooperate with others. To be clear, I'm not commenting on the content disputes, nor do I dispute that Paul may have contributed well in some articles before, but the behaviour we see here is highly disruptive and detrimental to WP. For these reasons, having followed the discussion this far, I love that Paul be indefinitely site banned and for a minimum of six months. Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to move on from this, so I'll be brief. The reason why the discussion above was open for so long was because Paul hasn't been edit warring exactly, just discussing ad infinitum and refusing to get the point. If you want to say he is, after the discussion has been closed in a fairly satisfactory way, I think you'd better provide specific diffs.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reopen discussion?

The close does not seem to reflect the complex nature of the discussion, and comes to a conclusion that few people actually supported - many supported a far broader topic ban, some people supported no ban.IDHT was covered in the discussion but there were numerous other policies that were cited but completely omitted in the closure. That the link to the article in the closure is red because the target is spelled wrong and that the topic ban has not been logged where it should are further indications of a lack of due care while closing this discussion.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

God no. That will only bring more pain and suffering into this poor world. And I'm sure Llywrch will get around to registering it.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Lurking shadow: for mentioning those steps. I'm doing this from work between interruptions, so I was bound to miss something. I will also drop a note on Paul Siebert's page about this closing. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, some people partly supported the solution, but that doesn't change the rest - the total lack of mentioning anything except WP:IDHT.Lurking shadow (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the most important thing was his threatening the users who voted to TBAN him. You should just let this lie.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul can be incredibly annoying, as far as I've seen now, in his quest to understand a statement, but he's sincere. He wants to understand, as far as I can see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not the way to learn and understand anything. This is wasting time of other contributors and a perfectly legitimate reason for a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, Joshua Jonathan, the case is very similar to Robertinventor, who you took to ANI several times which eventually led to him being indefinitely blocked. Paul Siebert exhibits extremely similar patterns of bludgeoning, IDHT, over-posting, TE, stonewalling, and forumming. Someone so deeply entrenched in disruptive IDHT is probably going to eventually end up at ArbCom if they do not get the message now that Wikipedia is not a forum for their disruptive musings and endless arguments against consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We should wait and see if he gets the message before reopening this. He has said he'll be gone for a couple of weeks, the best thing to do now is just let it be. If this continues to be a problem, a new report can be made. And if he does decide to file an ArbCom case, then there will be no need to reopen the issue here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted. If Paul Siebert does not somehow come to his senses and stop WP:BLUDGEONING talkpages, using talkpages as a WP:FORUM, endlessly promoting WP:FRINGE theories, refusing to listen, refusing to desist in the face of WP:CONSENSUS, and/or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, he will end up at ArbCom because someone will report him and his manifold disruption. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems like the most likely thing here. Honestly, I think the best would be to give him a long block along with a topic ban on Historicity of Jesus (maybe also something for Communism). It's clear he has done good stuff for Wikipedia, but I think his ego is way out of control.★Trekker (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure where this goes. His response to Llywrch [197] does not give me great faith that he's gotten the point. The problem seems to be that he knows almost nothing about the topic, but is absolutely sure that he's right and will distort any information he's given to support his views. He's still making claims at Talk:Richard Carrier that unnamed "secular scholars" support the JMT, while dismissing more or less every mainstream scholar as a Christian theologian who is unaware of this larger discourse. A larger discourse that Paul, of course, can't cite or substantiate. It's a very similar problem to a Christian fundamentalist, who would no doubt go around accusing all the historical Jesus scholars of being "secular scholars" (as regularly happens at, e.g., Moses). Anyway, assuming he actually does stay away now for a while (given how often he's announced he's going away only to return within hours, I have my doubts), we all get a nice reprieve from this. I'd suggest everyone just keep their eyes open and if there are more problems, we'll deal with them then.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think Paul is right about one thing. He tells in his reply [198] that he "participated in the talk page discussion that lasted just a couple of days.". This is true. Now imagine same thing happening for weeks and months on pages like Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. Basically, this is happening until he "wins" the dispute. After realizing his editing habits I avoid all pages that he edits, such as Gulag, Mass killings under communist regimes, Gas van, and so on, and so on. This is the situation when someone with a lot of time and stamina automatically "wins" all content disputes on all pages visited by just a few contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh I know this "technique" all to well, very often used by editors with very strong "vonvictions".★Trekker (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I would have closed this with a broader topic ban, but I don't think the close written is entirely unreasonable. I suggest we let this go for now and give the topic ban a chance to work. If disruption resumes, bring it back here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am disappointed in the very narrow scope of the topic ban. (Pinging Llywrch to notify, since he made the close.) Basically, this means we will have to babysit Paul Siebert's edits to ensure that he does not impose his fringe theory elsewhere. This is genuinely exhausting because it's not like you can put a person's contribs on a watchlist. And from the looks of it and My very best wishes's report, Paul Siebert's bludgeoning habits have been disrupting Wikipedia for quite some time, and will continue unless he is stopped; a warning about such would be in order. It's not too late for the close to be altered to include the broader topic ban of Historicity of Jesus, and an official warning against bludgeoning. The fact that the closer closed a contentious 225,000-byte thread "from work between interruptions, so I was bound to miss something" is definite grounds for a re-do or re-close. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I can only think of two points that I could comment on without re-starting this wave of verbiage once again. The first is that in my close I added the sentence, "Other Admins may extend this edit ban as they see fit, based on his further actions." In other words, there is no need for anyone to baby-sit him; there is no need for another 225,000-byte thread chock full of slabs of text in WP:AN/I to modify the close. I imposed a moderate TBAN on him in hope that he realizes that this is not an effective way for him to achieve his goals in an article, & changes his behavior. After all, at least one participant stated Paul Siebert had made constructive contributions. But if he attempts to bludgeon his way in another article -- which is something one just can't overlook -- in that case another Admin has the authority to TBAN him there as appropriate. If he still hasn't learned at that stage... Well, I hope he does. Because in my years of experience here at Wikipedia, I only seen temporary blocks modify the behavior in only a tiny fraction of those sanctioned.
      The second point is that my comment about work interruptions refers to the process of closing the thread & imposing some kind of protection to the wiki, not to reading everything Paul Siebert has written at Talk: Pontius Pilate & here. My God, the man can pontificate endlessly!!! And I thought I was bad. One thing I've learned from contributing to Wikipedia for over 16 years is that Mr Siebert is not the first person to try to push an agenda with a steamroller of comments on Wikipedia, & I can assure you he won't be the last. The important thing for everyone else to do is to clear their heads, then either move on or objectively study how he got control of the debate & figure out strategies to respond the next time he or the next person tries to civilly push his POV. Hailing people to WP:AN/I will not always work. (And I've seen cases where an outright ban has failed; some banned users have figured out ways to evade even that, sad to report.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible shared account/paid editing?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

There is this summary revert, in which its editing summary said something about 'series' [199]... I instantly consider this to be suspicious.

(The summary revert basically restored all kinds of factual errors.
E.g., (Error 1) The people of the Isle of Man and the people of the Channel Islands are (under domestic/national (non-EU) British (British Nationality) law), no less of British citizens than the people of the United Kingdom: i.e., the IOM and the CI are not foreign countries for British citizens (e.g., see the British Nationality Act 1948, section 33(2) [200]); and
(Error 2) British citizens do not have an automatic 'right of abode' in Gibraltar if they do not already also have Gibraltarian status [201];
(Error 3) British citizens in Ireland (Republic of Ireland) are covered by the Common Travel Area regime (implemented by domestic/national Irish law [202]) rather than by the EU Freedom of Movement regime;
(Error 4) There is (de facto) no EU/EEA Freedom of Movement rights in Liechtenstein for British citizens [203][204]; I could go on...)

All in all, it is just incredibly strange/bizarre for a single-person, unpaid, amateurish/hobbyist editor to create, edit and 'maintain' (as 'the user' sees it) articles about (and only about [205]) the entry/visa requirements of (almost) all nationalities in the world, since 2013... unless, the person(s) behind the account is/are working for/with Henley & Partners [206] (which are based/registered in Jersey in the Channel Islands)[207] and run their own Henley Passport Index. [208][209][210][211][212][213]

In no time did the user/editor explicitly declare any such links. (Personally, I think he/she/they is/are, and this sort of errors are deliberately introduced in order to manipulate the passport 'powerfulness' score, as Henley & Partners would see it.)

194.207.146.167 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Unless you have some actual evidence to support your claim that Twofortnights is engaged in UPE, you're treading very close to violating WP:NPA. Other than the fact that you have a hard time believing that someone would put this kind of time into maintaining wiki pages, I haven't seen any such evidence presented. Frankly, if it weren't for people putting in unbelievable amounts of time curating and maintaining articles, most of Wikipedia wouldn't be here. All this said, I'd read Oshwah's comments below, and take them to heart. If you have content concerns, take them up on the article talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The editing history for Henley Passport Index is also questionable [214], to say the very least! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And so is that for The Passport Index [215]. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Under "series" I mean you should follow the same style used in all articles under Category:Visa_requirements_by_nationality which contains about 200 articles all using the same designations. But yeah go ahead and conduct any checks on me, none of the things you suggest are true. I don't care about your personal attacks much but I don't know if the company you mentioned might find your out there claims libelous. I am simply asking you to read and apply the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't really address the other points which I have raised, such as that British citizens do not have automatic 'right of abode' in Gibraltar. The 'right of abode' is term coined by the British Nationality Act 1981 ("An Act to make fresh provision about citizenship and nationality, and to amend the Immigration Act 1971 as regards the right of abode in the United Kingdom.") for the United Kingdom and the UK only. Gibraltar has its own immigration system, and the term 'right of abode' is apparently not (yet) used by the government over there.[216] 194.207.146.167 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

These issues seem to be the issues for the article talk page not the discussion about my supposed corruption. I have already addressed several issues on Commons anyway.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Your reasoning that eTA [217], ESTA [218] and eVisitor [219] equal visa free in the Commons is bogus; and our invoking of the Manual(s) of Style is also bogus. There is no inherent requirement (or good reason) for every single Wikipedia to read and sound the same… unless, you are promoting them (different passports of different countries, for different nationalities) as commodities for 'sale'. The present page Visa requirements for British citizens read like an investment immigration promotional literature to some Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese or Indian oligarch or ex-military man to read rather than for the benefit of someone who lives in the British Isles, where the vast majority of British citizens are based (otherwise, you wouldn't need to include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands in the visa/visa-free lists, because virtually every adult person who can read and write the English language in Britain, is a British citizen and actually has a current unexpired British passport would know this almost as a given); the arguably equally bogus inclusion of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands (Virgin Islands of the U.S.), Guam, the CNMI and American Samoa in Visa requirements for United States citizens would serve to confirm this. A lot of these articles read awfully like Henley & Partners or Arton Capital touting for business using Wikipedia on an unpaid basis rather than serving any useful purpose for the vast majority of this site's readers (if there is still any!)… otherwise, can we just remove all references to Henley, Henley & Partners, The Passport Index, the Henley Passport Index and Arton Capital, and if not, why not?! They have nothing to do with e.g. Brits (or any other nationality) wanting to go on a holiday (or vacation) aboard (or overseas), which is what these articles are primarily supposed to serve, not how many 'doors' a Passport issued by Country A would open versus Country B like some competition! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is insane. Please stop harassing me.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Henley Passport Index/The Passport Index. Thank you. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly throwing up more questions than answers. The other user is basically saying that no-one is allowed to change anything on any of those articles unless they are approved by Henley & Partners' [220] or Arton Captial's [221] staff, lest they interfere/mess up with their own silly little own (internal) "passport rankings". I now personally think that all "Visa requirements for XXX citizens" article be removed under WP:NOTGUIDE. (Furthermore, lot of these articles in fact related to 'unofficial sources' [222][223], such as Timatic, which is an internal database provided by the IATA purely to advise the airlines and is never intended as/supposed to be an official reliable/authoritative guide to the general civilian travelling public outside of the airport check-in staff of the civil aviation industry. The only purpose of Timatic is there to protect the airlines from being fined for carrying passengers without the correct paperwork.) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

194.207.146.167 - I can understand where you might gain suspicions based off a user's edits, but because someone reverts your edits with a seemingly legitimate reason stated in the edit summary doesn't give you the right to instantly file a report here (or in other noticeboards like you did at WP:COIN) and make multiple repeated accusations toward Twofortnights without substantiate and proper evidence to support them. This violates Wikipedia's policy on civility and respect and how you're expected to behave and interact with others. I don't get to go around and make accusations or claims against another editor unless I have the proper evidence and proof to back it up. You haven't supplied ample evidence to support the accusations and claims that you're making here. And what do you mean exactly when you state in your edit summary here that you "don't care about [Twofortnights]' series"? Why haven't you started a discussion on the article's talk page to try and work things out with Twofortnights before coming here? You need to do this if you disagree with the edits or reverts that Twofortnights, and you two need to discuss the matter and sort it out. Minus the accusations you're making, this is all stemming from a dispute at Visa requirements for British citizens that's clearly content-related. I'm happy to see that no edit warring has occurred there; please keep Wikipedia's policy on edit warring in mind and do not let things cross into that territory. Work things out by discussion and following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol, and I'm sure you'll find that there's a good reason as to why Twofortnights reverted your changes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I have come to the conclusion (sometime today) that these "Visa requirement for XXX citizens" article are not/never bona fide Wikipedia articles 'to inform', but are there primarily to 'plug' (promote)/tout/advertise either the Henley Passport Index, and by extension Henley & Partners, or The Passport Index by their (also) UK-associated business rivals Arton Capital, or both. This is an inherent commercial advertisement which appears on literally every single one of these articles. I do not think I would want to stick my neck out to do an AfD nomination (again) any time soon ((still) far too much 'hoo-ha' about), but do they not fall foul of WP:NOTGUIDE? It would seem they do, even if/when and after all references to The Passport Index/Henley Passport Index are removed. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

194.207.146.167 - If there's content on these articles that seem to be worded like an advertising, or is pushing a point of view that isn't neutral, then yes, I agree, that content should be modified in order to resolve this. If the revert that Twofortnights made citing style guideline issues also reverted changes to content that removed such issues, you should definitely open a discussion with Twofortnights on the article's talk page and mention this. You could also try modifying just the content and not anything related to style or cosmetics (since Twofortnights cited this as the reason for reverting your edits there), and then discuss that issue with Twofortnights afterwards. Regardless, I think you're making unfounded accusations toward Twofortnights for being a paid contributor and working for the organization that the content details. Just because someone disagrees with your edits or changes does not automatically make them bad-faith users or users with deceptive motives or intentions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"I don't care about your personal attacks much but I don't know if the company you mentioned might find your out there claims libellous." That was an indirectly-worded legal threat issued on behalf of the company. A simple "I do not work for them" would have done, but instead he went on the offensive. I don't really think how adding the words "(under/according to Part I of the British Nationality Act 1981)" is in anyway substantially breaking the article from the Manual of Style (except WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Deflect from the accusation with a counteraccusation... if anything, the user sounds more like a professional PR (public relations) hack or spin-doctor. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

[224] The general on-Wikipedia consensus is that, Taiwan is a state with limited recognition, and not just merely a "territory". Even List of sovereign states didn't go as far as lumping Taiwan with the Gaza Strip! Just a whole pattern of the User thinking that he/she owns all of the articles and picking arguments over changes he/she doesn't personally like, basically. The Taiwan Relations Act, anyone?! Taiwan is a simple, straightforward "country" for the purpose of international travel by U.S. citizens as far as the U.S. Government is concerned! (And this [225], contrasting with this [226]?! Consensus, or just he/she (again) imposing his/her personal views on things, unchallenged?!) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As a side issue: And this [227] is even more questionable. If the Republic of Palau and the Government of Palau recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state (albeit) under the name "the Republic of China", then is it really up to User:Norvikk to put Taiwan under "Dependent, Disputed, or Restricted territories" for the purpose/benefit of Palauan citizens (which, this article is supposed to be about)?! And User:Norvikk and User:Twofortnights seem to know each other as well.[228] And the page's [229] editing history does suggest co-operation, if not also elsewhere and on an extensive basis [230]. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

[231] and this as well. Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government do recognise Kosovo as a sovereign independent state [232][233], and so does the European Commission on behalf of the EU [234][235] (for itself as a sovereign organisation under international law but not necessarily for and on behalf of each of the individual EU member states), and again, it is not really up to anyone (or someone in Belgrade, Moscow, Minsk or Leningrad/St Petersburg?) to dump Kosovo down to the bottom. (And anyway anything Kosovo-related is definitely sanctioned.) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop bolding and underlining things, it's obnoxious. Also let other people talk. 2001:4898:80E8:8:B9A5:5A22:C3FB:880D (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kwanele22

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kwanele22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems that all edits only consisted of tests. These resumed despite previous warnings. Perhaps a vandalism-only account? A recent edit was a page creation in another user's space (User:Wooyi/laboratory/storage/Ikkyu2's_essays). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is no such user as Wooyi.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - He's been here since June of last year, which is more than enough time to have evolved beyond "test" edits and more than enough time to stop disrupting / vandalizing other people's user pages. It may be a competence issue to be honest, even if it isn't deliberate vandalism. Michepman (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Update: indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 as not WP:HERE. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent IP editor adding wrong info (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Persistent IP editor adding wrong info. This IP editor found a way around the existing block and restarted the disruptive edits, see 107.215.191.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please extend the block to this IP address range. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Any action on this? The longer this IP editor runs amok, the more reverts we will have to do... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Luismuyalde12

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Luismuyalde12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Obvious sock is obvious, and still adding ISIS as perpetrator without a source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paladin5555

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Paladin5555 (talk · contribs)

I think this account needs a WP:NOTHERE block. I am involved as I just reverted this edit to Prague. Looking at the user's contributions, aside from that bit of subtle POV-pushing, they consist mostly of vandalism. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Given the rest of their edits, I don't think there would have been any issue if you'd blocked them yourself. The Prague edit was probably the least bad edit they made. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Good grief. How'd they go so long w/o a block?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Phediuk adding unsourced content to article after multiple warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello! @Phediuk: has added some unsourced content to The Haunted Island here. Everything they added except for the devs nationality was unsourced. They've been warned about this several times in the past, too. Sorry if I did this wrong or if this isn't a major offense, I've never reported anyone here before. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

One of the warnings they received said they would be blocked if this happened again, its on their talk page. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: he added the platforms back, but with a source this time, which is good. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources already in the article identify both the game's platforms and identify it as an adventure game: the first sentence of The Verge article, for instance, says, "The Haunted Island: a Frog Detective Game is a first person adventure", while at the end of the same article it says, "You can get it on Steam or Itch.io for $4.99 (Windows, and Mac OS.)" I didn't add anything that wasn't clearly indicated in the article's sources; nevertheless, I've added a link to the game's Steam page, too., if that would help. Also, one of the previous "incidents" you're referring to is literally someone telling me I was wrong for calling a developer a British studio because they were a Scottish studio, despite Scotland being part of Britain. The incident before that was me confusing two studios which had the same name, which I corrected as soon as it was pointed out, and thanked the editor who did so. Please notify me on my talk page if there are any questions about one of my edits.

To summarize: 1. All of the information I've added was already sourced. 2. I've added another link directly to the game's Steam page, which, like The Verge article that was already cited, says it's on Windows and macOS. 3. The previous "incidents" I've been involved with were minor, quickly acknowledged and resolved. Thank you for your time. Phediuk (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thats great but, you didn't cite your sources... just because a source is already used in an article doesn't mean you can just add content from it without citing it... TheAwesomeHwyh 02:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

If that's the only issue here, then I will cite the exact passage from The Verge article that calls it an adventure game, too. Thank you. Phediuk (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm one step ahead of you :) TheAwesomeHwyh 02:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is resolved then. P.S don't add bare URLS as sources. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this matter is resolved. Feel free to comment on my talk page if there are questions about any future edits, as I often look over new video game articles to see if any vital info needs to be added (i.e. platforms, developer, genre.) Phediuk (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please, block my account! --الرشيد (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potentially WP:CIR editor editing sports related pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The above user (new account, first edit from July 31st) has been constantly doing a lot of edits which go against either Wikiproject guidelines or MOS guidelines, or just keeps changing piped links. He has been warned on talk page (by 3 editors, including myself), but so far he has failed to respond and the problematic edits (which require clean-up afterwards) are continuing. I am beginning to have suspicions that this is a case of WP:CIR (particularly "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus."). Is there ground for any action here? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: @Jellyman: Pinging if you wish to add your opinions here. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Final warned.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I hate to not AGF, but I see brief bursts off high speed edits each day. I didn't see any constructive. I think we need to just indef them now and save ourselves trouble later.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think some of their edits are valid (removing unnecessary Caps in section headings / hyphenated phrases), but most are in contravention of MOS guidelines (either WP ones such as quotes, or project ones). I've tried leaving those thay were ok, but many edits do both, which I reverted. They have not left any edit summaries, or replied to talk page messages, so it is difficult to AGF. Spike 'em (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced Content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:201.62.51.36 just hopped over to user:179.189.94.54 to continue adding unsourced content after her final warning. I already confirmed that both IP addresses lead back to the exact same location. CLCStudent (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Page protected, SP, Oshwah.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim beat me to the punch. I also temporarily blocked both reported IP users for disruptive editing. Sorry for overwriting the protection you applied. I applied it just as you were... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Great minds and all-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal Threat by Jared Wyand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jared Wyand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Right-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see [236]. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

lblock applied. El_C 20:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bellbrook, Ohio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bellbrook, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could I ask for an admin's eye on this page (which happens to be the hometown of the Dayton shooter), please? AIV is backlogged. General Ization ^Talk 23:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected by Scott Burley six minutes after you made this request. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Playgroup2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user keeps on adding unsourced material to Wikipedia I warned this user (and a lot of other people had to warn this user). However, he/she still does can you block him/her? Thanks. Arthurfan828 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need admin intervention

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I need admin intervention at Islamic view on Muhammad and the Bible and Talk:Islamic view on Muhammad and the Bible. Two users just discuss from POV and failed to give reasons and check out their content removal. Thanks. --AntanO 15:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

49.206.219.155

Very possibly ignorable, but does User:49.206.219.155, who has just spammed several users' Talk Pages, apparently at random, ring a bell with anyone? Narky Blert (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 183.83.93.218 (talk · contribs)  · 206.210.160.96 (talk · contribs)  · 87.200.50.33 (talk · contribs)  · 45.64.178.87 (talk · contribs)  · 49.206.216.135 (talk · contribs) All seem to have been reverted and ignored. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from IP range 2604:2000:DED1:4E00

Active since 22 July, disruptive edits originating from this IP range (Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64) have been made on articles pertaining to superheavy chemical elements, the New York City Subway, and the Hong Kong MTR. Many of these edits were either against consensus (as in the case of elements) or constitue edit warring with terse edit summaries, and they have not engaged in discussion even in response to non-template messages. So far, one page has been protected, but others have since been affected and the IP is quite dynamic. I'm not sure if this is enough to warrant a ::/64 rangeblock, but other measures have so far proven ineffective. ComplexRational (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's probably just someone who doesn't realize that it's not their personal site or something like that. Nevertheless, given that they're not responsive, I wouldn't hesitate to encourage a range block. Jc86035 (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone in the /32 range is related, but one of them has been editing pages like User:Epicgenius/sandbox/draft5 (though certainly in a more coherent fashion). Jc86035 (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. A quick check of the /32 range finds many edits that are probably unrelated (e.g. those from E010 and 15C0); such a large rangeblock could create lots of collateral damage, whereas the /64 range probably is allocated to this user or an otherwise very small group. I found the essay WP:/64 rather insightful on the mechanics of this. ComplexRational (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

183.177.231.187 IP editor mass !voting at AFD (almost botlike)

[237] is posting massive amounts of !keep votes at AFD's with just keep as a comment. I'm not sure though what the game is here, but just thought I'd bring this to the attention. I do suggest a mass rollback and a block of the IP editor if possible. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This IP doesn't seem to be the only one involved though. From what I saw earlier and what is currently on AIV I'm not sure how effective blocking will be given the range of IP addresses involved. Maybe page protection or an edit filter might help? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have seen multiple another IPs spamming on smaller numbers of pages as well, including:

1. 175.120.209.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 111.118.45.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 172.218.222.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This is almost certainly some sort of concerted attack especially considering just how insanely fast the first IP Sir Joseph mentioned is spamming. Toa Nidhiki05 03:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I started a case here because I wasn't sure where to go - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/210.164.164.104. It has two different IPs than the above, but they are doing the same thing. SL93 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like something is going on, but even if those IP's are blocked, I think we would want a mass rollback of the !votes at AFD, which would not happen at AIV. I think there is a script or tool that does it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also:

• 180.200.51.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 210.164.164.104‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 1.250.164.112‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

creffett (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Rolled back all of these I can. I think almost all of OP’s originals IPs have been taken out as well now by myself and many other editors. Toa Nidhiki05 03:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 122.132.28.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Also this mass voter. Blocked by User:JJMC89 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Initially blocked by me for disruptive editing, JJMC89 changed the block settings. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 31.223.107.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This one too. Lamest bot invasion ever. Toa Nidhiki05 03:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 211.243.200.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) another one Toa Nidhiki05 03:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

On the off chance it becomes relevant, most of the WHOIS entries on these resolve to ISPs Japan and South Korea, though there are a couple in other places. Also, I've found a rangeblock that covers all of this...it would just block everyone else on the internet in the process creffett (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Creffett, maybe they're using a VPN?

Reckon they are all related? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Tyw7, at least one of their edit summaries would seem to suggest either concerted or long-term disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, ah that edit summary looks damning. But can anything be done against this other than range blocking?

That said, there is an SPI investigation opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/210.164.164.104 by User:SL93 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the faintest clue how to stop this, just figured that I should mention that the behavior was even more ducklike than it first seemed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 133.175.127.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Another possible IP vandal. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• More blocked IP Vandal 27.114.29.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in case anybody wants to find any corrolation and add a spam filter. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• 126.227.218.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) back --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Do you think we should maybe temporarily lock AFDs from IP edits for the time being? Maybe say 24 hours? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Is that even technically possible (or desirable) to lock down AfD from all anons for a period of time? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sakura Cartelet, Well as seen above the AFD is being trolled by an IP. Usually, with articles, this will trigger a temporary lock. PS please ping me if you reply as I don't add ANI to the watchlist. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I know that it is likely one person doing all of the damage to AfD. I was more wondering how we'd protect all of the pages in AfD (even if only for a limited amount of time) without causing unnecessary harm to (potential) good faith AfD contributors. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Just looked at the open proxy detection page and a few of the blocked IPs are on there so it appears that the vandal is using them (and other unlisted ones) to continue their disruption. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sakura Cartelet, if this happens in the future it might be worth pre-emptively blocking those IPs? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it might be a good idea to do this although since I'm not an admin somebody else would have to do it in my stead. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a known vandal, commonly known as derp (search the archives). The IPs are going to all be VPNs, and if there's a recurrence, please insta-block any IPs but also poke an edit filter admin. Edit filters are much easier than protecting all AfDs (or anything else - they will just move on elsewhere). Just a note of caution, for various reasons it might not always be best to use rollback where this vandal is concerned. One should usually check the page history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone should probably make an LTA page for the vandal if they haven't yet. Seems like it would be helpful. My two cents. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to use something like cascading semi-protection to the daily AfD logs? Or is cascading only for full protection? MarginalCost (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly Cascading semi-protection is not technically possible to avoid people without sysop rights being able to (indirectly) protect a large number of pages. Edit: Yes I was correct here's the link describing it. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

While we can't protect these pages, it would be trivial for a competent person (which I'm not) to create an abuse filter that would reject attempted IP edits to any page with "Articles for deletion" in the page name. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon violating WP:TPO in discussion about proposal to block him above

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With these edits:

• [238]
• [239]
• [240]
• [241]

Dicklyon is refactoring my edits in the discussion above on this page, after being warned not to so again after the first time. He's Wikilawyering like hell, and this is just part of it. I think he's digging a deeper hole everytime he pretends not to understand what he's accused of, so I don;t exp3ct anyone to do anything abou that, but I would like the refactoring to stop. Dicklyon does not get to choose how people express the arguments against him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that BMK has put his paragraph, redefining the charges, between the proposed action and the votes. It doesn't belong. So when he put it back, I hatted it and add some clarifying comments of my own. He has twice removed my comments. Please review his actions and mine, in light of the comment that I added and that he deleted. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

My added information did not "redfine" anything, it clarified what the unblock conditions were that Dicklyon violated. The text of the original proposal was not changed in any way. I would like to see the diffs of "comments" of Dicklyon's that I deleted as I had no intention of doing so, my only intention was to undo his refactoring of my comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Dicklyon, I accidentally typed a semi-colon after "User" in the title of this section, but I just changed it to the proper colon. Are you now going to refactor or delete my edit because it wasn't what you responded to initially? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a new report, rather than adding a subsection to the existing discussion. Anyway, it looks like BMK added something to the top of the proposal, which, though timestamped (days later), can at a glance be confused with the original proposal, which Dicklyon is objecting to. That top-placement can be easily remedied with an Addendum sticker attached to it. Rather than discuss the matter, much acrimony and edit warring ensues. Am I missing anything? El_C 05:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Roughly right, except that the "much acrimony" came earlier. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll add "Addendum". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that with the mass of mess about Marcus, and all the votes that were cast before I learned of the proposal to indef me, it's hard for anyone to find my defense (which starts at #Hold on here when I learned about this attack by BMK). And now BMK is redefining the charges, saying that everything I've been doing in the way of page moves for the last 4 years is in violation of a 2015 unblock condition, even though the admin Prodego who unblocked me said no. He keeps after me in many dimensions, even accusing me of canvassing, and now deleting my clarification of his clarification. Please tell me, how does one defend against this kind of vicious attack? Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Respectfully, El_C, you have silenced me by closing the above right after I posted a plea for help, and then deleted the section I started to complain of Beyond My Ken's behavior in this matter. This is not another topic to be added to the long toxic mess that he and British Marcus crearted above. It's me complaining about how he runs roughshod over process and rights, calling for my block without notifying me, changing the charges to make the votes look more plausible, etc. He has yet to even offer a diff of anything I've done that's disruptive, nor have I been able to solicit any definite allegation from anyone else. But he collected a bunch of votes to indef me based on false information before I found out this was going on. He keeps getting more vicious as editors start to oppose him. BMK is out of control. He threatens to report me to admins for daring to revert him, as if he's something so special he doesn't have to behave in normal ways. Do I not even get to open a section to complain about him? Why is he even here? He seems like just a drama monger, caring not a bit for the project or for the editors he harms. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This is your only warning about personal attacks and about continuing a closed report, again. I'll move the archive below this just this once. I'm trying to be lenient, but there is a limit. Add a new subsection to the existing discussion, if you must — but splitting the thread by taking it to the top of ANI was a mistake BMK made, which you are continuing twice over now. El_C 06:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Header

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why is the noticeboard header collapsing? Could it please be restored to what it's been for many years now? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - You can uncollapse it by clicking "show". Michepman (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, that's obvious, but I'd prefer not to have to do that, as I use the header with great frequency, and having to unhide it every time is a nuisance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - I agree. I wonder if it is a configurable setting. I will see if I can figure out a way to request that it be set to be uncollapsed by default. Michepman (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Think I got it, although I have no idea why it changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting on/fixing that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - Which template was changed in the header exactly? Did you find it? Can you link me to it so I can take a look? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. I had a similar issue yesterday, on my User:Diannaa/Useful stuff, which uses template:navbox. I added a | state = expanded to force it to expand. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa! It looks like Template:Navbox just calls #invoke:Navbox, which is the Lua module here. These pages haven't been recently edited, though... Hmm..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Like Diannaa, I simply added "state=expanded" to the headers on AN and AN/I. I did not look very deeply into why that change was necessary, but it seemed to me that the default state of all navboxes got changed from "expanded" to "collapsed", as a number of single navboxes on articles which I looked at yesterday, which I'm pretty sure had been expanded before, were collapsed when I looked at them, with no state specified in the call. That does not seem to be the case today, so I assume the default got restored. I have no idea where that change would have been made, sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - I appreciate the additional information and details. I'm just curious to exactly what template or module was changed, when, by whom, and why... as well as if the change followed any kind of consensus, discussion, or prior approval. I definitely want to know what happened and make sure that no tomfooleries are afoot... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the history of both Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header -- the two files I added "state=expanded" to -- and there had been no recent edits, which is why I think that the change occurred upstream somewhere, an area that is literally beyond my ken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block adjustment

2001:16a2:51b9:9400::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked today, but the ip has continued their edits with 2001:16A2:544E:3500:59BD:370F:7A80:66F (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Cards84664 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor seems to be jumping around the /36, so I did a short range block on Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:5000::/36. If it keeps up, page protection might be a better solution (if possible). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I already put a request in for protection, thank you. Cards84664 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, does your block include the entire range that was first mentioned? Not complaining, just (almost) clueless about IPv6 rangeblocks. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. CIDR looks more confusing than it actually is. For IPv6, when the number after the slash (n) is divisible by 4, it matches the first n/4 hexadecimal digits in the IP address. So, a /36 will match the first 9 digits (2001:16a2:5xxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx). A /64 would match the first 16 digits (2001:16a2:51b9:9400:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well now, if I can remember that, it will be easier :-) Thanks! I've unblocked the first range — that was my main reason for asking, since I wasn't going to unblock unless all of its addresses were covered by your block. I just wanted to avoid the confusion that might result from two rangeblocks applying to the same set of addresses simultaneously. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC

A discussion was begun at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Names and birth dates of non-notable children (again) that is constructed as an RfC and that people are responding to as an RfC, yet which has been designed a completely non-neutral manner. It is in contradiction of WP:RfC's requirement for a neutral opening statement and does not use the RfC template that announces the RfC to the relevant Projects. This appears to be an end-run around proper RfC process in order to limit discussion and achieve a biased outcome. I ask for admin inspection of this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not explicitly stated, nor formatted, as an RfC, so I don't believe it violates Wp:RfC. Nor does my reading of the initial post seem to be an attempt to change policy, merely to understand policy. Nor does it seem to be attempting to limit discussion, there are many more contributors there than in an average discussion. If you don't like the current discussion, I'd say open up an actual RfC that follows RfC guidelines in a new section on the page (or ask someone neutral to do it). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not uninvolved since I expressed an opinion there after visiting it for the mention here. But as I said there I don't think we need an RfC on the issue since it seems obvious that the RfC did not change policy, and so I think it's fair enough that one was not opened. Not all discussions need RfCs. However if any feels there is need for an RfC, they are free to open one. Until then, I think it would be obvious we will go by what our policies and guidelines actually say, not an RfC where the closing statement just says what to do in that one article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Insulting messages being directed following a discussion - User talk:WilliamJE

I am aware that this is not as severe as some other cases previously stated here by other users, but I must say, the user in question's attitude toward me is appalling and following a query into the deletion of a large chunk of text on a page I had worked on, User:WilliamJE challenged my literate capability and directed a blatant insult toward me in the summary of his edits to his talk page. Referring to me as a "Pathetic loser" multiple times.

As far as I am aware, and following the guidelines set by the article - Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". I am interpreting that as a viable excuse to escalate this further, as his behavior should not be tolerated. (Particularly focusing on the insert "blatantly bigoted insults" in the quote provided)

To summarise the case, I had helped work on the page - 2019_Pakistan_Army_military_plane_crash the day of the incident, as a result, the sources that had been provided in the article were subject to change. I sourced what I could at the time with the information that was available to me and left it there. I soon came to realise that the information I had added had been deleted when the article was reverted, which User:WilliamJE claims was "bs" despite the fact that the BBC article had been updated to cater for new information and confirmed death tolls. I went to the users page to enquire about the issue, potentially falsely claiming it was vandalism as I was not aware it had been reverted at the time. The user then refused to comply with the question that had been asked and instead referred to me as "pathetic" and a "loser" and told me to "get lost". I then responded saying that he was acting unprofessionally and had no intention of resolving the dispute, which was clear from his demeanor at the time. He removed that post, again, using blatant insults for no particular reason. Perhaps it was a mistake for me not to leave when asked, and for that I sincerely apologise to User:WilliamJE, but again I do not feel as though it warrants the behavior displayed

I will inserts the links to the evidence I feel is appropriate to resolving this issue here:- [242] [243] [244]

Moving forward, I honestly just want a response, and proper criticism so I am able to properly ammend the article. I also wish for this to be looked into incase it does actually violate policy as I had figured, and so correct action can be taken for future reference. I am able to provide further information if required. WETiLAMBY (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This editor is

1. Editing not signed in as shown here[245] and here[246]. In the second of which they accuse the wrong editor
2. They have violated talk page rules as seen here[247] by reverting comments made not just by me but another editor. That is clearly a case of following and reverting or WP:DISRUPT.
3. There is no proof the BBC article ever said what they claimed and I've had a long history of removing false entries in aviation accident articles. Here[248] and here[249]. The first of which earned me a Barnstar from a administrator another editor who does lots of aviation accident article work around here. Based on their history with me and actions at List of Mayday episodes talk since I am only more convinced this editor deliberately entered something wrong on that article.

I am not going to apologize for anything I said. My talk page has had to be page protected multiple times due to abusive editors . That conduct has happened to me t other talk pages also. My talk page protection history should be adequate proof of that. Also I have made it clear that I don't think too highly of editors (Established long-term ones or IPs) that put what I term 'bullshit with a reference' around here and that is what we have here with Wet....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• @WilliamJE: One of your diffs above shows an IPv6 editing the Talk page of List of Mayday episodes. What makes you think that IP is WETiLAMBY? They've never even edited that article, I don't believe. Plus stylistically it doesn't look at all right.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't believe too much in coincidences and both that The Rambling Man reverted Wet at my talk page while saying not to post there anymore and that my post to Mayday Talk was one of my very last talk page (Where I have been very active over the years and has the original source of other abuse and probably by the sock of a blocked editor) edits before this happened and the reversion of which came at the same time what was going down on my talk page. Based on the history I mention, I got justification to think these two could be connected but I could be wrong....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm going to say that for the record, I can completely confirm that I am not in the slightest affiliated with that address and I know absolutely nothing of this user. How you have linked this person to me is completely beyond me, there is no evidence supporting that whatsoever and for good reason. My Wikipedia account has been around since 2015 and have no reason to sign out. WETiLAMBY (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Can I just add that I did apologise for reverting the comment and not leaving, like I said. Also, as stated in, and as previously mentioned Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks - The contents of this article suggest that using the stated response as an excuse is not justifiable and still makes your disrespectful comments extremely demeaning and hurtful, and I am shocked by how you decided to deal with the situation and referring to me as "Illiterate" and a "Loser" degrading and immature. You seem to have no respect or no regard for any other users which I suggest should also be taken into consideration. I have said what I needed to say and I shall leave it at that to see what else can be done.

  Oh and I must also add that, yes, User:WilliamJE is known for ammending articles by removing falsified entries, however this case is different. Not only did he remove the supposed "fake entry" but he just straight up reverted the entire page back to what the previous user had done, reversing all the 100% factually correct information on the page. In my eyes that is not "removing false entries" but instead "removing everything because a single line could potentially be wrong." and at the end of the day, I was right anyway, as the death toll did infact increase to 19 <ref>https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-asia/article/3020564/five-soldiers-among-12-killed-pakistani-military-plane-crash</ref>WETiLAMBY (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Special:diff/909291658 ("Iliterate, pathetic, loser go away.") deserves a block. WilliamJE has a history of civility issues issues (block log). — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • So what. I never saidWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive240#Is_this_now_considered_acceptable_from_an_administrator? '"You know what, fuck you. You're a petulant, narcissistic piece of shit." That was said by administrator around here and he wasn't sanctioned by the community. If that happens to me, how can possibly that be anything but hypocrisy when an administrator get off for the same or much worse except for this place having double standards around here. Not afraid to say what I feel around here for 10 years and won't stop calling shit what it is or that there is double standards around hereUser_talk:WilliamJE/Archive_7#ANI for certain people....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @WilliamJE: Isn't it rather weird to be citing ANI stuff from seven years ago to justify your own current attitude issues and insults to editors? (Have you even read it - the offending admin back in 2012 even offered an apology for their offensive email, so it's a very poor example to hide behind.) I think it would benefit the project if you were to take a step back, re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, take a look at WP:FRAMBAN (a recently blocked admin) and maybe even take a hint from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's disappointing when lack of respect, insults and personal attacks get in the way of cooperative working here, so I would like to see you dial back the insults quite a few notches, please. Do you think you could do that? I do actually agree with you: WETiLAMBY was wrong to speculate in their edit to 2019 Pakistan Army military plane crash (based on the one cited BBC source) that further deaths were expected, because clearly the source didn't suggest that (even if further deaths did happen). But WETiLAMBY added a lot of other good stuff too to what I guess was a breaking news story. I also guess your restoration to an earlier version, which also removed their other valid improvements to the stub, was the kind of error that anyone could have made - I've done similar myself when in haste. But I've either explained myself or apologised when called out for it, never attacking another editor personally as you did. I see an unacceptable incivility and arrogance in the way you then responded to WETiLAMBY, repeatedly calling them 'illiterate', 'pathetic' and a 'loser' (here and here). I can see you've been on the receiving end in the past of abuse from multiple editors, and that's not nice and might have led to a jaundiced view of other editors. But your attitude in your responses above leaves me feeling you're unwilling to change, or recognise that another editor might also be working in good faith, and that behind their keyboard is another human being who shouldn't expect to be insulted and attacked by you for a simple error (from WP:NPA "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.".) That kind of thing drives other editors away and is not acceptable. Maybe it was a bad day for you -we all have them - so I would invite you to apologise to WETiLAMBY for your remarks, and I'm afraid I would support a short block for an appropriate period of time, per WP:NPA, if that were not forthcoming. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Note that the edit referred to is not solely based upon one source. It cites the BBC and a WWW site. The latter is just aggregating two further sources, published by The News International and Dunya News, neither of which state that the toll was expected to rise. Nor, according to the Wayback Machine, did the BBC. It pays to get the facts straight, because doing otherwise is exactly what leads people years later to point out how bad these noticeboards are at this. Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point (the aviation safety website did actually state "Rescue officials said the death toll could rise since some of those injured were critical.") which only serves to make the abrupt removal of WETiLAMBY's edit even more unjustifiable by WilliamJE. Maybe he missed that, just as I did. But it is still WilliamJE's personal attack which is the issue of greatest concern here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• • • I entirely agree with Nick Moyes. An apology for the personal attacks or a block. I don't care if the apology is offered due to that threat, just do it. And cut those personal attacks out now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Propose block WilliamJE

until they 1) apologize or 2) otherwise show they will adhere to WP:CIVIL from now on.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would support indefinite block for WilliamJE. The community should also consider a civility restriction. Some examples of problematic edits over the last few months:
  • Special:diff/899173888, Special:diff/899175831 ‎Are you nuts? ... I should expect this from you since you are the same nut who idiotically accused me of sockpuppetry.
  • Special:diff/881475020 I'm sick of idiot editors who don't know what they're doing, or editors who rather whine than fix their mistakes.
  • Special:diff/876291483 Your citing an article you obviously didn't read is hysterical.
  • Special:diff/849644224 You can't even put things on my page right... You rather complain about me than fix bs or admit you're wrong.
  • Special:diff/909222878 I called it what it was. Bullshit. Ruiz didn't die so it is BULLSHIT and there is far too much of it around WP.
  • Special:diff/880157903 Why are you stupidly removing valid categories?
  • Special:diff/882427914 You obviously can't read.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hold on there, Bill. Whilst I do support a block, as stated above, for their nasty personal attack, let's not be too hasty to "string 'em up high" with talk of an indefinite one just yet! We need to encourage good contributors and encourage an improvement in their attitude towards other editors. Personally, I'd prefer to see their apology and their assurance they'll adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA from hereon in, than see anyone blocked. (ANI will always be here if they don't.) But, oh dear, I've just noticed this. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Seems to feel justified in their incivility. He may or not be the only one needing a block for incivility. We need to look more deeply at this. @GoldenRing: did try the voice of reason on his talk page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is an example of how incivility poisons the work environment until brawling like ego-drunk adolescents becomes the norm. This is an example of how WIkipedia has failed itself. I still think William neds a block, but I think he is not the only one. Someone else can please sort this all out.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Can you be more explicit as to who else you think needs a block for personal attacks (what William said is far worse than "incivility")?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the overall tenor of the discussion(s) is/are so fraught with incivility and "yeah, but's", I just couldn't sift it. WilliamJE is using the incivility of others as an excuse for his own, and I just cannot wade through it enough to be more specific. If, as from his responses, @WilliamJE: could enlighten us as to 1) who was incivil to him in this latest contre temps 2) provide us with supporting dif's, and 3) indicate whether or not they later apologized, I'd be much obliged.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

But yes, as he has said he has no need/reason to apologise, I see no other choice but to block him.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Forgot the @Bbb23:-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked William for 48h for the personal attack and refusal to apologize. As far as I can tell, William has not presented anything that justifies the attack. In addition, any supposed attacks against him that he has mentioned occurred years ago and are irrelevant to his own behavior now. Finally, his inclusion of "hypocrisy" as a defense because so-and-so gets away with doing this and that (e.g., the use of the word fuck), is equally irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Good block. Right duration. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: He sent me an email referencing the talk page posts above my post there, which I was supposed to figure out. Do not know if they are for the "years ago" stuff. I left simple instructions above. Perhaps at some point he could follow them. Hope the block communicates the message. As I said in another thread at the top of this page, one can deal with problem editors and problem edits without rudeness, incivility, name calling and, in this instance, coarse labelling.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of stooping to the current level of (crude vulgarism) what passes for discourse today, "I'm fresh out of (vulgarism omitted) to give."-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Viestijä2017

Viestijä2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Suspected undisclosed paid editing (all edits). Account was previously forced to rename from "TEM viestintä" [Ministry of Employment and the Economy communications] to "Viestijä2017" [Communicator2017] on fi.wiki. No paid-contribution disclosure anywhere. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I ave them a WP:PAID notice. If they continue editing henceforth without heeding PAID, they may be subject to blocking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

IP disruptive editing on day of the year pages

I don't know much about how this works, but I believe a single user is using multiple IP addresses to vandalize February 13, April 5, July 3, and July 9. Please look into this and address the situation. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 23:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the exact same edit is being made on the exact same page by similar IP addresses. I am not tech savvy enough to know what this means, but I need a sysop to look into it and stop this now. The edits are constant and I can't keep up. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This is either a single discontinuous mobile range (thanks, Telstra), or the user is on the border between two ranges or something, and depends on which tower his phone feels like using that second. Anyway, the ranges are Special:Contributions/1.129.0.0/16 and Special:Contributions/1.144.0.0/16. I did look over the entire assigned range, 1.128.0.0/11, but did not similar edits from any other portions of it. This is an extremely busy range, and represents at least several hundred thousand Australians, possibly millions if Telstra is distributing these very unevenly. Could block them, but since the interest seems to be so focused an edit filter to stop this range from editing day articles might work. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

​I'm not sure if you did anything yet, but I thought I'd let you know that it's still happening from a unique IP address. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I made a filter in log only mode to make sure it works. If it doesn't catch false positives, I'll enable it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP 85.175.194.16

This incredibly problematic IP has over 3 years of final warnings on their talk page, miraculously without ever being blocked for constantly adding unsourced genre's to album and band related articles (see here, here, here and here for some recent examples). No attempts have ever been made to communicate from their side so it seems fair to say they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Robvanvee 12:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee, a note from May 2017 on their talk page states that this is block evasion by Mrwallace05. Home Lander (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Home Lander, thanks, I see. Are you suggesting this should go to SPI? Robvanvee 15:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee, well, no, I don't see much point in that. But probably could be blocked for block evasion if behavioral evidence is strong enough (a casual glance shows interest in similar article types). Home Lander (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I couldn't be bothered to try match the accounts but just figured, given their editing history and talk page, user should be indeffed! Robvanvee 15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on the IP's location, there is no block evasion, and IPs are never indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So what is the appropriate action for one to take? Should I not have brought it here? Robvanvee 04:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee - The report you made here was fine, and you did nothing wrong by starting a discussion regarding this IP user. Bbb23 was just providing you information about the IP and its range, and letting you know that we don't block IP addresses or ranges indefinitely. We may block them for quite some time (5+ years) if it's necessary, but we don't block them forever and with no expiration. That's all. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Oshwah. Robvanvee 08:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee - You bet. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Coolbruh123

User:Coolbruh123 has a fairly long history of problematic edits, such as this one which was part of a pointy campaign related to K-pop singers. On that occasion I warned them about page blanking (side-note: Coolbruh123 has removed many warnings from many editors from their talk page, as they are entitled to). Earlier today they made this edit with a particularly nasty personal attack in the edit summary. I warned them about this, and received a personal attack in the edit summary [250] reverting my warning. This is not the first time they've resorted to incivility and personal attacks in edit summaries, eg [251], [252] and [253]. I'd appreciate an admin reviewing this. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Why spot only the bad sides of what I have done, and not acknowledged the useful stuff that I have done. They all said to discuss it in the talk page, yet no one discussed anything and had to do it their own ways when Chungha clearly rapped. Do they have anything against rappers? I don't get it. Personal attacks? Oh well Coolbruh123 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally AN/I isn't interested in the useful things an editor has done. And the linked edit summaries are definitely outside the bounds of appropriate comportment within Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"Personal attacks? Oh well" is exactly the kind of attitude we don't need on this project. WP:NPA is a policy. It is not voluntary. If you can't respect it, you will be shown the door.--WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How not to get into trouble for edit summaries: Only describe and summarize the edit being made. Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That is certainly a standard to aspire to. But even when we fall short, we should avoid personal insults and acronyms such as "ffs". Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

this edit summary seems like it should be worthy of a block. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 21:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It is. @Coolbruh123: You need to apologise for that edit summary to all it applies to. You need to affirm that you will cease and desist from that sort of thing. Limited time offer before I block you.00:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Coolbruh123 is blocked for 24 hours for their use of an unacceptable edit summary here. I hope I'm not stepping on Dlohcierekim's toes here, but this user has had enough time to respond, and he/she should know better than to resort to uncivil comments and edit summaries like these... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem. If disruption resumes post block we can escalate. What got me was the rhetorically dismissive shrug in this thread. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing by COI editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Numerous issues. It's been dealt with on COIN, page has been appropriately dealt with. Very transparent COI by multiple SPAs. The last refuses to admit such behaviour, still insisting they are neutral, but clearly still fixated on the one and only topic they edit. Now close to 3RRing. Just not letting up. It's disruptive and a waste of everyone involved's time. User talk:Inca28a, latest reverts here, COI discussion here. I did a deep dive into the article and there have been 10 incarnations of COI-SPA editors with shared behaviour, it is a long-standing issue. It would probably help if this person was given a topic ban or other appropriate sanction to help keep the article independent - and this way they wouldn't be prevented from fulfilling their desire to help 'contribute with accurate information to Wikipedia, like everyone else'. Rayman60 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians,

I've responded to every threath on this editor and send all my information and details when was requested. This editor, clearly has a personal issue with the subject. Why he hasn't clarify that? Why am I the only one responding to your questions. The only thing I've been doing is adding sources, references, citations and only mentioned Fraser T Smith REAL work, nothing to do with promotion, advertising, et. like you mentioned. Now again, What's Rayman60 issue against Mr Fraser T Smith? Inca28a (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A consensus from established editors about this achingly transparent behaviour has long ago been reached. Almost immediately after this report was filed to help curb disruptive behaviour, an identical edit (third RR) came from an IP. Editor claims true independence and venerable desires but if the duck test was applied to this, the quacks would be deafening. This report is really just to request appropriate tools to limit this behaviour which is of detrimental benefit to the project.

• A topic ban on just this article and related (i.e. on an album by third party produced by subject) would allow editor to continue their quest to contribute to Wikipedia and would allow that article to remain truly independent. An employee of a hotel with no commercial connection to the article would have zero resistance to such a solution. Rayman60 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Inca28a is a single-purpose editor doing nothing but promoting (through adding unsourced claims and general name-dropping and puffery) Fraser T. Smith, a British "record producer, songwriter and musician" of dubious notability. So there is IMHO no doubt about it being either COI or paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"dubious notability" Wow. Clearly, you know nothing about the Music Industry. Are these the people moderating Wikipedia? Inca28a (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

People who are truly notable don't need the unsourced name-dropping and puffery you're repeatedly adding... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Inca28a: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with a narrow definition of notability. If truly notabile, you should have no trouble providing content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. With WP:BLP's sourcing is especially important.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: They know the rules here, since they, per WP:DUCK, have been using a string of single-purpose accounts here for at least six years now, all of them doing nothing but adding unsourced fancruft to this particular article: Inca28a, Codeetopixels, WikiContributer1, Lucyelizabeth71, Danyaiv, Saulfitton, Josh.myaudiotonic and possibly other less obvious ones, plus various IPs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 01:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"unsourced" when most of the source cited on FTS article and almost every article in Wikipedia comes from Wikipedia itself. You're defeating your own purpose here. Inca28a (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can't be used as references per Wikipedia's rules, so any attempt to use WP as reference/source is reverted on sight. You need reliable third-party sources for everything you add, as you have been told many times over the years. I strongly recommend you also read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians and others in the field of music to see what is and isn't seen as notable here within that field. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• In spite of this ongoing discussion Inca28a is continuing to add the same unsourced name-dropping to the article, showing they have no intention to ever stop... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks from AdamPrideTN again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Please dont start another useless edit war as i will have to ask others to interfere my infos are sourced" Here he assumed bad faith and took offense where I made sourced edits where appartenly adampridetn felt wp:Idontlikeit

@Eperoton: hey bro, i can assure unfortunately that this dude never gets it. Bro, i would ask u gently to take ur time and read the History of the page LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates and especially its last section about ILGA in its talk page U will see that this dude just don't get it and that i stand with u and u are right in all what u wrote. Cheers!!! AdamPrideTN (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/906324401

Wp:pa also note he has also been wp:hound such as in death penalty for homosexuality where he showed up out of nowhere to critique and follow me to do his personal attacks. Note he has gotten warnings on here before Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013#Personal attacks from AdamPrideTN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneyspender (talk • contribs) 07:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Moneyspender: The thing about the Emirati page yes i acknowledge and appologised and it is old ok and if u think this is an attack too in the Tunisian is a personal attack then i assure that it is not and uf u think then ok sorry again

  As i said before tge problem is that u delete sourced content and insist on adding misinformation and unsourced biased infos

  This is vandalism to pages that were for years good and true

  So please refrain from doing that

  There is no need i assure again please understand by stop pitting that vigilante attacks and excutions are tolerated and common in some countries because these even happen in the US and other good western countries, second it is not what the laws say.

  So whenever u don't like sources u just delete them a'd try to block me by victimizing urself

  No dude i didnt personally attack u

  I did it with the Emirati page at first and i'm sorty

  Sorry again for this

  Now please refrain from vandalized edits that all other userscasked u to and thefe are many edit wars of u with them and focus on building necessary good edits

  And updating pages infos

  Cheers and good luck and sorry again.!! AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• AdamPrideTN, stop calling people names, then apologising, then calling them more names. Stop calling Moneyspender (and indeed any other editor) a vandal, an islamophobe, or anything else. Do not do that again, especially in the very same breath as saying that you are sorry and will not be doing that.
• AdamPrideTN, please learn to punctuate. Your command of the English language is far from ″perfect mastery″. Sentences end in full stops; and the words are spelled ″I″ and ″you″.
• Both of you, stop using edit summaries as a conversation. That is a sign of an edit war. Confine edit summaries only to summarising and describing the edit.

Uncle G (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 He is now harassing me, doing personal attacks, and assuming bad faith in my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moneyspender&oldid=910062385  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneyspender (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC) 

@Moneyspender: no dude i am not harassing you, the users said take that to the talk page which i did, i am not personally attacking u, and i'm not asuming anything i just presented facts and arguments

Why do u insist on deleting sourced content oh can u believe too that i found an 8th LGBT association only for trans people. Will added soon for Tunisia. Why did u delete it sourced content about lgbt organisation of the country why do u keep insisting on adding vigilante attacks if they are not law and it is not true nothing of that happens. Please ok

I have a right to not want personal attacks and general toxicity on my page such as you dragging other users and editors into our disagreement of editing by tagging them on my page and then writing nonsense in horrible grammar all over my page. Secondly, if I tell you I don't want that on my page you have an obligation to respect that. I will keep undoing and reporting if you keep vandalizing my page. If I say no and you keep doing it that's vandalism. Understand? Moneyspender (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems each of you have managed to trigger one of my pet peeves. @AdamPrideTN: per WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED, editors are fully entitled to remove nearly everything from their own talk page. None of the tiny number of exceptions of material which cannot be removed applied to your message. So you are quite wrong in saying 'Plus u dont get to delete it nope' and in reverting the removal. Please don't do that again. Meanwhile @Moneyspender: while it was wrong of AdamPrideTN to re-add their message that you removed, it is not vandalism. WP:Vandalism has a specific meaning on wikipedia, which doesn't include all incorrect edits. Please don't call stuff vandalism when it is not. Edit: From the looks of your message, this second part also applies to you AdamPrideTN. Please don't call stuff vandalism when it isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seattle Lane

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Oofoof27 (talk · contribs) Has deleted the AFD notice off this article four times and I put escalating warning notices on his talk page. An administrator may want to handle this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

And he has since done it a fifth time[254]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 24, right after the 6th time. I don't think semi is required at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OK, enough

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

James Bowes (talk · contribs · count)

Can someone put an indefinite stop to this. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bus stop at Talk:Oakland Ghost Ship fire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can't believe it's come to this, but Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) thought it proper to abuse rollback to edit war with me over hatting his comment, which was needed since consensus has strongly rejected his argument and his comment is now distracting from the next stage of the discussion. I request that his rollback privileges be revoked, my hatting reinstated, and Bus stop warned to drop the WP:STICK.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Jasper Deng—you should not unilaterally impose your will on somebody else. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not my will, it's the will of the other editors there too. And you certainly don't use an antivandalism tool in such a dispute. I'll leave the rest to an uninvolved admin since clearly I'm beginning to lose patience here, thus my further direct participation will not be constructive (beyond carrying out the requisite ANI notices).--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No one else hatted my comment. You hatted my comment, repeatedly. I took time to compose it and put thoughtfulness into the wording of it. It is of course your prerogative to respond to it in such a way as to tell me that you think I am full of hot air and off-the-mark with my opinions. But you not just once—but repeatedly—collapsed my comment. That is not the way to engage in civil discourse. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look at the discussion, it really would be wise for you to drop the stick. No, Jasper should not have hatted your comment once (let alone multiple times), nor does he really have the right to insist that you stop discussing a particular aspect of an open discussion. That said, it is not hard to see why he is annoyed. The arguments for and against including 'Oakland' in the title have already been made. Newcomers to the discussion have sufficient information upon which to base a conclusion and it seems clear that neither you nor Jasper will change the other's mind. At this point, you are wasting your own time. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop consistently shows a lack of understanding of talk page PAGs and accepted practice. He provides an example of this in his first comment here. For better or worse, we are largely responsible for policing the behavior of those we are required to work with, and it is completely routine to "unilaterally impose your will on somebody else". I daresay I've seen Bus stop do exactly that himself, so we can add the adjective "hypocritical". I could go on and on, but that's about all I have time for at this juncture and I don't have much faith in ANI's ability to address established problem editors like Bus stop anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As a general rule, when one is embroiled in a disagreement with another editor, one is probably not in the best position to objectively determine whether the other editor's posts should or should not be hatted. Jasper, you didn't have to bring yourself to 3RR, and I don't think you should be incredulous over Bus stop's use of rollback. Maybe Bus stop does need to drop the stick regarding the RM (which isn't closed yet, so you don't officially have consensus), but this edit war (and resulting ANI threat) is a completely unnecessary sideshow. Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• The hatting and revert war it sparked is unfortunate, but must be understood in the bigger context of what led to it. I am perturbed that the hatted veteran editor who was involved in a run-of-the-mill article move request debate can find himself here so quickly, but a quick check of the archives finds that this has happened before for similar reasons. The editor demonstrates that he can admit to being in error one minute, then turn around to rehash the same error shortly after, followed by a long session of beating the dead horse. I am also aware of the possibility that the editor, being an artist himself, might be more emotionally involved in an article about an artist colony. I just wish it didn't have to come to this, but it's always possible that a trip to this forum might make the editor see that this way of doing things is uncollaborative, disruptive and harmful to the proceedings. StonyBrook (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• It looks to me as if Bus stop is too emotionally connected to the tragedy to make an objective assessment of its proper title on Wikipedia. And this is the wrong hill to die on if one was trying make sure the reader knew that the city of Oakland had some level of culpability for the fire. The right way is to emphasize text talking about the several missed opportunities for Oakland to shut down the Ghost Ship as unsafe. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, you were in the wrong in the hatting. It is not proper to hat a single 138-word comment, simply because you disagree with it, don't like it, or think it is repetitive. It is certainly not proper to hat a single 138-word comment with the title "@Bus stop: it's been explained to you several times, your position doesn't have consensus, drop the WP:STICK and move on." You could have posted that as reply to him, but you can't hat his comment with that clearly biased statement. If Bus stop is violating talkpage guidelines, or being otherwise disruptive, then you can report him for that, but you cannot report him for justifiably un-hatting his own single 138-word comment. Hatting is used for lengthy tangential conversations which have become distracting in their length. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • His comment was distracting. At the least he should not have put it in the warehouse or not discussion. I didn't hat because I disagreed with him on the content issue; I hatted because he was, in my view at the time, disruptively attempting to further an already-rejected argument (which is obvious from a simple headcount after the initial debate) and distracting from the next point of discussion. Maybe my hatting was improper, but the rest of my actions and comments still stand. He abused rollback and won't drop the stick. This isn't the first time he's been told this either.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I do not agree that use of rollback (even repeatedly) to unhat his comment which had clearly been hatted without warrant is or was in any way sanctionable. You were at fault. If he "won't drop the stick", that is another matter entirely and you can address that by responding to his talkpage comment to that effect. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Since edit warring with rollback is a bright-line abuse of the tool, I think otherwise so we're going to leave it at that. I'm not at fault for anything but hatting in lieu of replying directly. I brought it to his talk page as well. I don't perceive your involvement here as helpful here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• No comments on the merits or demerits of the substantive issue, but the linked contrib does look like a misuse of Rollback to me. See WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I don't see other examples of Rollback misuse in Bus stop's recent contribs using Rollback however, so I don't think revocation of Rollback is necessary here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Bus stop appears to have disengaged from the particular conversation here, which I now appreciate. The one remaining issue for me: Personally I am still strongly in favor of having his rollback privileges revoked for what was a bright line abuse of it, and making him promise to not abuse rollback again. At the least, he needs to be formally warned that future misuse would lead to revocation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd be in favor of a formal warning (though not necessarily a "final warning") on the basis that it was clearly not a proper use of Rollback, but not in favor of revocation in light of the fact that there doesn't seem to be a pattern of misconduct with Rollback. I don't view the earlier reverts as being part of a pattern of misconduct which could support revocation of Rollback. Having made some boneheaded misclicks with Rollback myself in recent weeks, I could see the click on "rollback" instead of "undo" as a possible explanation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I un-hatted my comment 5 times. The first 4 un-hattings were accompanied by polite edit summaries. Only in the last instance did I simply use WP:ROLLBACK. I'm not in the habit of using rollback in interactions with other good-faith editors. Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Right. I just don't think you should have used Rollback there. Even if you could argue that "the reason for reverting is absolutely clear" in line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE #1, you were pretty clearly in a revert war. You're not supposed to use Rollback in pursuit of a revert war. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
          • You are right. It is a poor way of interacting with people. I apologize to Jasper Deng. Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm glad we can all agree that the use of rollback was inappropriate. However, I feel that Jasper's hatting a comment from an editor with whom he was in a dispute was actually more problematic, as was the insistence on edit warring to keep the comment hatted. Frankly, Jasper seems way too offended over the misuse of rollback when Bus stop could legitimately be offended by Jasper's repeated hatting of his comment. It should be noted, again, that the RM has not yet been closed and that Bus stop was therefore not editing against consensus, even though a consensus may be emerging. In other words, Jasper did not have valid grounds upon which to hat the comment and the ensuing edit war, the misuse of rollback, and this thread would not have happened if he had not overstepped reasonable boundaries. Oh, by the way, while Bus stop's comment may have seemed distracting, as of yet nobody has actually responded to it aside from Jasper's ill-advised hatting and edit war. Lepricavark (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
              • If I've never used rollback inappropriately before, which I don't believe I have, can this be dropped? There is a level of persistence that I exceeded. I wanted to express my objection to acronyms. Believe it or not I actually regret not mentioning WP:COMMONNAME in that comment. We all should be thoroughly familiar with policies. But over-reliance on policy acronyms is not productive, in my opinion, in dialogue with editors who have been editing for ten-plus years. In my opinion the burden under such circumstances is in "translating" into one's own language the way in which one feels policy guidelines have bearing on the dispute under consideration. Sorry to sound off—I like engaging in real dialogue with those editors representing positions with which I disagree. I am sometimes flabbergasted by the barrage of acronyms that sometimes substitute for verbal interaction. I understand Jasper Deng's frustration. I apologize for rephrasing my argument ad nauseam. I was saying nothing new; I was just saying the same thing in a different way each time I rephrased it. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HarveyCarter

78.16.84.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Classic trolling fitting in the Harveycarter-line on here, in a discussion from 2012, here, unsourced, here and [255] plus a few more inflammatory edits on the pages mentioned.

See also: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. The Banner talk 20:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The geolocation for this IP is all wrong for them to be HarveyCarter, unless they're on vacation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Favonian:, who is very familiar with HC's editing. Also note that The Banner filed an SPI here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Banner and Beyond My Ken: HC has certainly been known to express opinions similar to those of the IP, but they are not exactly uncommon in the Republic of Ireland. In consequence, I'm reluctant to block the IP at present. Should they "diversify" into some of the known obsessions, we can revisit the case. Favonian (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's first comment is a great example why we should oppose WMF's attempt to start hiding IP addresses for people editing without accounts. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'm going to push back on that a bit, subject to a caveat. The caveat is that we don't know precisely how that proposal would be implemented, but I can't imagine a proposal getting community buy-in that doesn't include the ability for a substantial group of editors to have access to the underlying IP address. Would think any reasonable definition of that group would include Beyond My Ken, so this observation about location would've been possible under a proposal to make IP address is less visible. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Really? In the wake of FRAMGATE, you really think that?

The proposal specifically says that they don't have any idea at this point who -- if anybody!!! -- is going to have access to IP information, and therefore to geolocation data. That means that a rank-and-file editor such as myself will no longer be able to go to any admin and say "Here's this information: the edits are just like this person's previous ones and the IP geolocates to the same place." Instead, I'll have to file an SPI or bother an overworked CU (presuming they are the ones who will be able to see IP numbers and geolocation data). That's a recipe for more vandals and LTA's to slip through, as regular editors can no longer build up a mental database of the attributes connected to these people. The WMF obviously doesn't see that as a problem, but I do. Besides HC, there are at least four other vandals/socks/LTAs that I recognize from the combination of content & geolocation, and I suspect other editors recognize many more than I do.

And, no, I do not think that I, a non-admin, would ever be trusted to see IP numbers and therefore geolocation data. Given the WMF's positions, I'd say that only advanced permission holders, such as CUs, would be able to see it, but I doubt that they'd even bundle it with admin rights. Their thing is tightening up access to information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, At the present time, the IP address of non-logged in users is available to everyone, not just logged in users but the general public. I think there were good reasons to change who can addresses. (As an aside, I can attest having handled dozens of relevant OTRS requests, that many in the general public are stunned to realize there IP address is displayed. It doesn't help us that we often refer to this as anonymous — it's anything but)

There's a bit of a debate who should be able to see these IP addresses. I think I recall someone suggesting it ought to be restricted to CUs but I see this as unreasonable, and while I generally support the initiative, I do so on the presumption that they will settle on a sensible criteria. CU only is not a sensible criteria. If you don't mind, I'll use you as my canary in the mine. Any proposed criteria that would exclude you is too tight. Roughly speaking, I want all those editors who familiar with some of the problem editors over time to have such access for precisely the reasons illustrated by this example. We have far too many examples of long-term abusers, and I don't want to handcuff those who are willing to help whack the moles.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, says the canary <g>, your position is a reasoned one (which would almost certainly involve a new user right) but I am extremely pessimistic that your position is one that the WMF would ever accept. It's much more likely, in my opinion, that if this initiative goes forward to fruition, the class of editors who will be able to see IP numbers (and therefore geolocation information) will be as restrictive as they can make it. I say this from a sense of what their positions have been in the past - but we're both prognosticating, obviously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Long term CIR/DE issues from IP editor

• 100.12.255.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP address is the current address Staten Island user who has a record of WP:DE and breaking tables (WP:CIR). Please see User:EvergreenFir/socks#Just_Fix_It for known past IP addresses and blocks. While this user's tone has changed from yelling at others to fix their mistake to asking nicely, they still lack the competence to edit tables. As this is not "typical" vandalism, I thought ANI would be the appropriate place to bring it up. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced edits and disruption

After four warnings, Xqq1238 (talk · contribs) has continued to make unsourced additions and changes, often contradicting existing sources. Many of the changes are to countries' population and area figures. The changes are sometimes correct, but often false. The latest change, after the "final warning" was: [256] (the sources mention neither "Arabs" nor "Africans", and the figure for "Americans" doesn't correspond with the source.) They have also been edit-warring, for example repeatedly inserting the same unsourced figure for the area of Germany: [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263] (apparently they've taken the number from de:Deutschland, but it also contradicts the given source in that article.) Most of their edits have been reverted, for being unsourced or otherwise disruptive. Some other examples of unsourced changes to statistics include: [264], [265], [266], etc.

I've already reported them two weeks ago as an obvious sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ufufcguc, an editor with a long history of thousands of exactly the same type of edits, going back to at least 2016. Not sure why it's taking so long, but in the meantime they're causing a fair amount of disruption, as usual. --IamNotU (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• They've edited after this was posted, so I warned them to respond or risk being blocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like they've stopped editing from the Xqq1238 account, and have gone back to editing logged out from Special:Contributions/2A01:111F:E1A:A400::/64, now that ST47's block from April on that range, from the previous SPI report, expired a week or so ago. I'll add it to the current SPI report, but maybe someone wants to just go ahead and block that range again? It's very obvious that it's the same person, and that they're continuing to add the same unsourced - and in many cases obviously fabricated - statistics, etc. They've been back at it for almost two months now and have made hundreds of edits, and I reported it already three weeks ago now... --IamNotU (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Eyes on a couple of closed AfDs with issues?

• Central Park Rangers FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Park Rangers FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoboken FC 1912 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings. These AfDs were NAC closed as redirects on July 18 but have yet to be removed from CAT:AFD. The CPR FC redirect is showing up in WP:BADAFD as linking to a closed AFD even though there does not appear to be such a link in the current version of the redirect. (The HFC 1912 redirect dropped off WP:BADAFD by itself on July 27 despite there having been no edits to that redirect since the AfD closed.) Can an admin please look at these and do whatever cleanup is necessary? Also curious to know if there's something I'm missing with regard to being able to find and resolve the problem myself without calling in admin intervention. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 18:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Null edits to the redirect and afds fixed them. One hopes this isn't a problem with XFDcloser in general. —Cryptic 03:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruption at Cantonese, again, again.

As was previously reported on ANI, [here] and [here] before that, Jaywu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to periodically add unsourced changes to population of speakers in the Cantonese article. user:Kanguole, user:LiliCharlie and myself have left numerous messages on their talk page asking them repeatedly to discuss their changes on the talk page, they made a single post to my talk page [here], on 10 July, to accuse us of being "Cantonese haters" (which I found highly amusing being a Cantonese speaker myself) and in effect threaten to sock if they were blocked You can block me all you want, I'm just going to keep coming. Since then, they've continued to try and add their synthesis to the article. More recently, they've given up using the unreliable source and have gone straight for changing numbers irrespective of what the source already says, effectively misrepresenting the source altogether.

• 11 July
• 20 July
• 22 July
• 26 July
• 27 July
• 1 August

Prior to the 11 July edit, they were asked each time to provide a source, but Kanguole (bless their patience) has given up asking and just reverts their edit. At this point, it is obvious we're dealing with an editor whose disregard for proper sourcing and penchant for slow motion edit warring and I would ask for a block. I will be notifying all involved editors shortly. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that this person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and that they are consuming volunteer editors' precious time instead. I agree that a block seems justified. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for two weeks, to stop the disruption. Perhaps he will reconsider his approach, though these edits don't inspire much hope.[267][268] If he continues after the block expires, I would recommend an indefinite block. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Based on the name of the citation (中国语言地图集 （第2版）Language Atlas of China (2nd ed.) i would guess the citation would only supported the number of Cantonese speaker of China. But may be missing the (estimated) figures of Cantonese speaker in Malaysia, Australia and North America, etc.. However, it is not a valid reason for Jaywu2000 to insert unsourced figures to the wiki article, especially insert in-between the figures and the citation. He did stated his figure was copied from ethnologue in his talk page (see Special:Diff/905543170), but i am not sure ethnologue had been discussed in WP:RSN as reliable source or not. And then the personal attack in his talk page (Special:Diff/905582502) had deteriorated my good faith on him. So, yup, he need to learn to use WP:RS and solving the dispute in proper way such as WP:Rfc, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. Or he need an indefinite block to prevent further damage to wiki articles. Matthew hk (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually its a global estimate, but (as you say) this is something to be discussed on the article talk page. Kanguole 23:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Douchebagdelight2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a brand new account, has just appeared making this edit to the article. Obvious duck is obvious. Blackmane (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Note, this user has now been blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights as a username violation. Blackmane (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it seem now the case need to refer to SPI or a quick ping in order to determine the block of Jaywu2000 should be extended due to socking allegation. In theory his temp block had "account creation blocked" but not sure there is way to bypass it. Matthew hk (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be inclined to leave it as it is for now. Jaywu2000 is still blocked. If they continue their previous behaviour after they are unblocked, they can be reblocked. As for account creation, that would only be from the particular IP they are using. If they are on a dynamic IP then it wouldn't stop them from creating new accounts. Blackmane (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Fæ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fæ (talk · contribs · count)

This report concerns Fae's activities on a page regarding Jessica Yaniv and the subject's court case before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Fae does not want this page to exist and is in the midst of trying to have it deleted. Fae has also fought to keep properly sourced material out of the article, even to the extent of violating the 1RR sanction that they asked for in the first place.

But this concerns Fae's remark on the talk page for the article: "I'm actually starting to wonder if I should argue the case the other way, deliberately quote ten more shitty transphobic ranty sources, and get this article deleted as an attack page." [[269]]

And that is precisely what they did just thirty minutes later, adding statements to the effect that transgender people go against common sense, among other things. [[270]]. This is apparently an attempt to make good on their promise to add transphobic content to the article in order to have it deleted as an attack page. They began edit warring to keep this material in the article, but stopped after an admin pointed out that they violated the 1RR rule in the process.

Another editor pointed out that "This seems like editing to illustrate a point." [[271]] I noted that deliberately adding material to an article in order to bolster a deletion argument is disruptive. [[272]]

I asked if Fae would cease this kind of disruptive editing. [[273]]. They responded that they would not. [[274]]

I have no idea what else to do, aside from bring it to ANI for resolution. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Cosmic Sans: I'd appreciate a courtesy ping if I'm being quoted somewhere else. For the record: the page has been nominated for AFD (by me), and saying Fae is "trying to have it deleted" like that's some kind of crazy position is silly. I do think that Fae's adding that content was disruptive and WP:POINTy, but (to the extent that anyone cares about my opinion) I also think you were being pointy when you added it in the first place. You went from agreeing that a statement from a Human Rights Lawyer should be removed from the article, to adding tweet from Ricky Gervais a couple hours later. I find that pretty inexplicable. Nblund ^talk 22:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not inexplicable when you consider what I actually did and what the reasons were for that. I did not, as you say "add a tweet from Ricky Gervais." In a sentence regarding the international coverage of this case, which is rare for the BCHRT, it was noted that Ricky Gervais mentioned the matter and that had garnered media attention. His actual tweets were not included - if you'll check, I was using the same verbiage as the source. The purpose of this edit was to illustrate the international media attention this case has garnered, which is rare for a BCHRT matter. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC) And I believe you're taking my comment about the human rights lawyer out of context, as well. At the time that I said that it should be removed, it was quite literally the only content under a heading called "Commentary." The section has developed since then, and it's now appropriate for inclusion when you look at the entire section. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've been watching this mostly from the sidelines and am not enamored with Fae's behavior in continuously ratcheting up the tension level on this and related pages. Fae has, in connection with this and another case (though Fae would deny the connection), recently been cautioned at WP:ARCA for very similar behavior ([275], [276]), again, ratcheting up the tension level and repeatedly seeking to impugn and discredit the motivations of good-faith discussion participants. I think there may be grounds for reconsidering whether Fae's editing in this topic area is a a net positive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• The material I added was providing context for the inclusion of Tucker Carlson as a commenting pundit on the BC Tribunal case. Carlson is exceptional famous for ranty diatribes and has promoted white supremacist views and homophobic views, and these are exceedingly well sourced. The context I added was Carlson's precise words, from the comment about the BC Tribunal case that had been added to the article by others, along with new sources. This is not excessive, it is providing context for the casual reader who may not know that Carlson is not an neutral journalist reporting the case. It remains odd that these tangential views are being argued by Cosmic Sans as being necessary, when they are at best tangential. However if they are to remain in the article on this case about a trans woman, then Carlson's actual comments being made should be explained, especially the misgendering of that trans woman he was talking about, and calling Canada "sick".

Per WP:BLP, tabloid journalism should not be in articles like this. If the argument put forward on the article talk page is accepted, that this is not tabloid journalism, then it is reasonable to give it context. To deny context because the context looks like tabloid journalism, but leaving the context out but still including the comment as notable, is a bizarre catch 22 argument.

By the way, this catches me as I go to bed, and I may not look at this tomorrow, being busy with building work. --Fæ (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, it strikes me that you're describing mainstream journalism as "tabloid journalism" merely because those mainstream articles refer to information from a tabloid source. We don't call that an unreliable source, we call that a secondary source. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv, I think you should try and read the talk page to get a better understanding of the valid points Fae has brought up about the news coverage of this story, which indeed seems to be just another sensationalist thing to sell headlines with. This is just pure bullshit; no matter what reputation the Toronto Sun might have, I cannot accept a paper that prints that kind of (transphobic) trash as a reliable source for a BLP. In fact, we should not even accept what it claims are basic facts. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That may well be true, or there may be alternative sources that can be used, but all of this is obscured by Fae's battleground, combative misconduct, on this article and on others. That is the problem being addressed by this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess one clarification we might agree on, is whether editors can call objectively transphobic abuse in a source that another editor is adding to a BLP, "transphobic", or whether that word, even if accurate is always off limits. In most other places, it is okay to say that misgendering a trans woman is transphobic language or simply transphobic, because it meets the accepted definition. In the past on Wikimedia projects I have used "t-word" rather than writing "transphobic" because that word was so inflammatory even if accurate. If folks want to try doing that, let's all make an agreement to limit our language and we can be consistent about it. --Fæ (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Transphobic" is a great word. Describes exactly what it says on the tin. We shouldn't hesitate to call out transphobia where we encounter it (I don't think you and I have any disagreement on that).

But this isn't a story about transphobia. Where Jessica Yaniv has experienced transphobia, that's regrettable but it's not the main story. The story here is whether it's possible or acceptable for transgender women to behave "improperly" to the BC HRT (and the BC HRT has used just that term), or similarly if transgender women can behave in a manner towards waxing salons which has been variously questioned as improper, inappropriate, racist or profiteering. Being transgender doesn't excuse such behaviours! On that point, I think we do start to diverge. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh yes, let's be absolutely, 100% clear: If there is transphobia, whether in articlespace or talk space, we should not be shy about calling it out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• So don't accept it. If that's a trash source, then we just don't use it. End of story. A problem with this incident is that it has played directly into the TERF and reactionary right narrative. This is the "female predator"(Fiona Robertson's term) in the girl's locker room that they warned us of. So unsurprisingly, the right-wing and trash press have been quicker to cover it than anything more balanced. But that's not to say that there's no better sourcing available to us. We can use that, and it's enough to work with. This complaint of poor sources has pervaded the AfD out of all proportion to the actual problem it presents to us. We ignore the dross and work with the better stuff alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment I've also watched Fae's editing behavior from the side. Though I don't have difs handy, I've seem plenty of battleground behavior, edit warring (as recently as today), bludgeoning, unwarranted accusations of bad faith editing. Fae seems to have an extremely pointy POV that is being pushed at the expense of the quality of the articles and the civility of the talk page interactions. I would suggest considering reinstating Fae's previous Tban lifted in 2016 [[277]] Springee (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I should note that Fae called me "abusive and transphobic" in an edit summary today [[278]] because I added the following sentence to the article: "Yaniv's case has garnered international attention, and was featured in a segment on Tucker Carlson's television show on Fox News." I think this is excessive to say the least. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Fae called the content "abusive" and "transphobic", but I would argue the context suggests it was intended to be a personal attack, and in any event making those kinds of edit summaries rather than making a straightforward referral to the talk page without further editorialization is just another sign of Fae ratcheting up the tension levels to an intolerable level in order to drive away people who don't wish to be associated with edits that anybody calls transphobic. I can see many people whose on-wiki personas are known elsewhere or who edit under their real names being seriously chilled by such conduct simply out of a desire to protect their own livelihoods. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess you could read it two ways. For various personal reasons I was a little upset by the implication. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand, I would've been fuming myself to be told I was doing something that was transphobic and abusive. Like I said, it's yet another example of Fae ratcheting up the tension level. Andy Dingley lists a number of other examples below. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I find this reading bizarre as I just cannot read it differently to the way I intended. Sorry if you read it as an accusation about you, but my words in the edit comment are intended as factual statements about the content, not about any Wikipedian. --Fæ (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the intent, it's a very hostile way of editing and I think you've shown a pattern of hostile editing throughout this article and other articles. I understand you were topic banned for this sort of thing back in 2016. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

My worry would be that a taunting edit summary like that is less about driving editors away (anyone still here is thick skinned) but rather an attempt to provoke them into a harsh reaction in turn. Because Fae is excellent at then playing the victim. And woe betide anyone who might act in a way which could then be presented as the faintest suspicion of transphobia! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Fae's behaviour has been way past acceptable across all of these Jessica Yaniv articles and pages: Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Meghan Murphy, Talk:TERF, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate et al. Their editing within mainspace is domineering and bullying, their attitude to other editors in talk: spaces is dismissive and abusive, with scant regard for basic accuracy, let alone any acceptance that any other editor might have a valid viewpoint. This is full-on righting-of-great-wrongs and to hell with everyone else.

As a quick example from many, four days ago they posted this: [279] " no matter how much Andy Dingley loves it, presumably because it includes some bizarre and unsupported unverified hearsay about child abuse, it is still transphobic crap," to which I replied " you are the only person here who has mentioned child abuse. Now stop assigning motives to other editors, and throwing loaded terms into the debate which no-one else has used, or else you're going to be doing it at ANI." There has been no such change in attitude, and so yes, we find ourselves at ANI.

Naturally everyone involved has had a dire warning of GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions dumped on their talk page. Today Fae went to 3RR to remove something from the article (wasn't there already a discretionary sanction in place?) and then imposed a unilateral 1RR across the article Talk:Jessica_Yaniv_waxing_case#One_revert_rule_is_in_place, just to make sure that their now "correct" version would stick. Fae just will not accept that the same rules bind all of us, Fae included.

I would certainly support reinstatement of a TBAN. Or maybe Fae just complying with the basic policies which apply to all of us regardless, would be a good start? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A topic ban on transsexualism? Jonathunder (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a ban on edits dealing with gender and gender identity. Fae would probably agree that one could be placed as a discretionary sanction under the GamerGate DS regime—though I don't think said regime is so broad, and would therefore prefer we did so through a proper community-based discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I understand there's a TBAN from 2016 which has been suspended? Maybe that would be suitable for reinstatement. But Fae seems unable to proceed in this area without behaving inappropriately towards other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's not suspended anymore, but completely vacated. The Committee would need to reinstate it via an ARCA, and my current opinion of Committee procedures with regard to their strange interpretation of finality is such that I don't think that should be done except in a new case request. That's not to say I think a new case request should be brought. If a sanction is warranted here, and I'm not sure that one is, it's entirely possible to bring it via community discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so it's not my call about 1RR.

I am happy to comply with all basic policies as you suggest. Feel free to highlight any policy violations you perceive about my edits on my talk page and we can discuss. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if I'm not mistaken you, Andy Dingley, advocated using a blatantly crappy source for a BLP, so that thing about "basic policies" applies to you also. By the way, you made a completely ridiculous accusation, that I somehow implied you were someone's sock? This was a dumb comment. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, Drmies, this problem could have been prevented had Fae's combative misconduct not taken place in the article. By continually ratcheting up the tension level, Fae has created a hostile editing environment in which mistakes like you describe are not only more likely, but are bound to be made. Many editors, myself included, will not edit in this topic area because it is quite simply radioactive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is at ANI already. So you do not make hand-waving accusations at other editors like that, you provide diffs at the same time. No ifs, no buts, so I've struck it until you specify just what source and when I was "advocating". And in particular, you don't pull this "Oh, I might have been mistaken all along, I did mention it, don'tcha know?" crap. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah Andy Dingley: you referenced or linked to claims that Yaniv was a "sexual predator" five different times (4 in that deletion discussion alone): 1,2, 3, 4, 5. One of those is a blog post from Miranda Yardley that is rife with BLP violations. I agree that some of Fae's rhetoric has been over the top, but I think that's an odd instance to point to, and it clearly wasn't out of the blue. Nblund ^talk 00:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

One of those is a blog post from Miranda Yardley that is rife with BLP violations. Point of clarification: Does WP:BLP apply to the content in sources? I don't think so. It can be perfectly fine to cite sources containing things that we would never say in Wikipedia's voice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• No-one, certainly not me, is going to use Miranda Yardley as a source anywhere near BLPRS. But I'd also point out that Fiona Robertson, the National Women's and Equalities Convener for the Scottish National Party used the term "female predator", and we can source that through the Glasgow Herald (which still isn't a tabloid). Now, whether we need to is a good question - it has little to do with waxing, but that's one of the reasons why I advocate widening the scope of this article to Jessica Yaniv more broadly, at which point these many accusations and the widespread allegation of inappropriate and predatory behaviour towards young girls will come up again. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, in which of those diffs did I "advocate[d] using a blatantly crappy source"? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Or did you mean the Vancouver Sun, which you have classed as a tabloid on the grounds that its writers also wrote for tabloid papers? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a reference to your comment here where you said calling Yaniv a "sexual predator" would be "on the table" on the basis of a Miranda Yardley blog post. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I took it to mean you thought that this sort of commentary might be acceptable on a BLP. In any case: you referenced those claims a whole lot, and presumably that's what Fae was bringing up. I'm not saying it warrants sanction, but I also don't think Fae's comment is way off base, taken in context. Nblund ^talk 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• "I think". Well, sorry, but I'm looking for Drmies to back up their accusation here, as they're the one who made it.

As I have never made any secret of, I detest (and pity) Miranda Yardley. My comment in that diff was "and yes, it's a chilly day in Hell today, as I'm agreeing with Miranda Yardley over anything" because it's the only time I've ever cited Yardley as a commentator on anything. You might note that I've cited Fiona Robertson far more, and have every intention to carry on doing so. My only reason for including Yardley was to illustrate just how far this condemnation of Yaniv has spread, and how many independent commentators (and Yardley is at least prominent, even if she appalls me and I dread to think of a situation which would accept her as RS). I did not "reference those claims a lot", I have (until now) made only one reference to her (my shower isn't big enough for the scrubbing down I needed afterwards). Never for one moment would I suggest using her as a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You've referenced "those claims" (sexual predation) 3 times in this thread alone. Aside from just reflecting inexcusably bad judgement, it looks pretty clear to me that you're calling for Fae to be sanctioned for correctly noting that you want to bring allegations of child abuse to main space. Of all the legitimate grievances you could point to, this is just asinine. Nblund ^talk 01:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

How about this, I have spent too much time on the BC Tribunal case article, getting trapped in circular debate, and some of the content does make me sad, including the anti-trans material and abuse claims that I have felt obliged to examine in detail, stuff I would never, ever, seek out normally as you cannot "unsee" it. I am clearly arguing for one point of view to the exclusion of others, my intent being to address an imbalance of discussion, but even starting out with good intentions, that's not a proper way for any Wikipedian to think about articles in the long term as we individually should be concerned with all the evidence.

I'm removing it from my watchlist, and I'll no longer participate in the associated AfD or any other discussions about it. I'll trust the community to stick to the high requirement of BLPRS to sort it out.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not good enough. It's a great (and well-known) strategy to avoid ANI by either not engaging with it, or walking away from a particular battle. But that's not enough. You've gone too far. Other editors need and deserve protection from your combative editing like this. Just saying "I'm walking away and I won't do it again (but only this one page!)" doesn't cut it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not as much in agreement with Andy that it's not good enough, but I think it's the wrong answer to the wrong problem. Your involvement in the Yanav article isn't the issue, and I think that your own viewpoints should be valued. The problem is that the combativeness, wikilawyering, tension, bad faith, etc. undermine both the credibility of those opinions and the overall value of those contributions. People aren't apt to listen, and in fact might fight back for the sake of fighting back, under such circumstances. That said I can respect your decision to back out of that article and AfD, and wish you nothing but the best. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Andy, If you examine my contributions in the last 12 months, I think only this article and discussions about it, are what you have a specific problem with. If you look at my user page I have created several articles about notable trans women and non binary people, none is subject to debate anything like this article. Rather than some general topic area, this case is an extremely unusual set of sources and extra-ordinary content to deal with as a community. Were the plaintiff in the case not subject to serious accusations, being the matter under discussion at BLP/N, then I doubt that the two of us would be in any protracted dispute about content and principles. The fact is that you have firmly agreed with me on some of these issues relating to the respectful treatment of trans women more generally, let's not fail to recognize that fundamentally we agree on these topics, it is just this case that is by its nature a bad one for me personally to take a stand on. --Fæ (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I've seen your contributions for the last 12 months over those last twelve months. My silence, or at least not going to ANI, should not be taken to indicate that I am particularly happy with the style in which they were carried out. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I've never been your enemy, nor actually an adversary when it comes to content and improvement. We've both been part of many policy related discussions on Commons as well as tricky deletions. Feel free to raise issues on my talk page rather than building cases for dispute resolution. We've both been around this project a long time and understand how most things can work out or where the systematic holes are than we try to keep walking around. I did read your comments, and did consider the points you were making about this case. Just because we do not agree, does not mean that you cannot make me doubt my case and change it or do an about face and agree with you. You probably have seen me doing exactly that in our discussions.

You can normally tell because some smart person will point me out as being a hypocrite. --Fæ (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Good example of how Wikipedia isn't good for covering current events based just on recent news, especially when it comes to BLPs. How about a great big trouting for anyone who added an opinion piece or, worse yet, extracted the most scandalous bits about a living person, a double-big-extra-spicy trouting for anyone who reinstated that material when reverted, and then we just delete this and move on until there is evidence of lasting significance in reliable sources (not tabloids, not opinion columns, not blogs, etc.)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The story is a year or two old already - and growing, what with the arrest. In Canada it's (AFAIK) "the biggest BC HRT case yet" and there was something about them running out of space in the tribunal's room for the numbers of public spectators wanting to get in. We already have coverage in three broadsheets. Although there is a lot of trash coverage, and the right-wing reactionary press love this story because it plays to their narrative so well, there's plenty more besides. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• On the issue of the Toronto Sun As I've mentioned a couple of times at the AfD and at BLP/N, they are most certainly not a reliable source for anything. If postmedia has something reliable to publish, they do so in the Vancouver Sun or the National Post, and even those publications are dubious on politically sensitive issues in an election year. The vast majority of postmedia's local papers (such as the PEI Guardian, also cited at AfD) are just reprinters of the postmedia wire service. And the Toronto Sun is perhaps the worst publication on the postmedia roster, a tabloid both in format and content. It is about as reliable for BLPs as the Daily Mail. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Bullying warning

The biggest thing I have seen is Fæ attempting to litigate opposing points of view out of discussion on talk pages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: GamerGate and when rebuked there, doubling down on the same tactic at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Removal of apparently libellous hearsay and links to apparently libellous hearsay on talk pages relating to the "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons" tribunal case.

In the light of Fae asking @ Arbitration that transphobic statements be grounds for discretionary sanctions, I find this edit to be particularly chilling. Fae considers believing that "woman" means only "cis woman" to be a very basic and offensive example of a transphobic (in any sense) statement, so I must conclude one that is grounds for discretionary sanctions. This has a negative impact on the ability to advance or even discuss relevant points of view, in light of the Wikilawyering, victimhood, drama, cries of transphobia, cries for censorship, cries of things being too disturbing or offensive to even read, etc. I get the impression that if Fae had their way, the wording of the leads of Woman and Trans woman would not even be open to discussion at all.

For someone with any aversion to conflict the prospect of dealing with Fae may be daunting. For this reason I propose Fae being warned against bullying other editors, particularly in gender-related articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not chilling to raise an Arbcom request to discuss whether or not discretionary sanctions can or should be clarified more clearly to address the specific use of Wikipedia by Wikipedians to generally espouse their own views which measurably and factually attack the existence or rights of other Wikipedians. You are free to contribute factual statements to the GamerGate Arbcom request, but if the request were "chilling" then Arbcom members would be the first to state that and reject the request. I have no problem with contributors producing sources and explaining for the improvement of Wikipedia articles that it is a political lobbying view that only cis women are women, which by definition is the view that trans women are not women. It is also perfectly factually correct to discuss whether in Wikipedia's voice we can or should accurately describe those views which deny the rights of trans women, or deny them the ability to exist, as quite literally being transphobic views.

However two other things are true:

1. Currently in "Wikipedia's voice" we state as fact "trans women are women". Consequently that is how "structurally" Wikipedia is built, in the nature of acceptable labels, categories, article titles or the respectful description of living trans women. If you wish to change that, then that is itself a policy discussion I fully encourage you to have, in the correct venue which might actually be the Arbcom request that I raised.
2. All editors are free to use Wikipedia's talk pages to improve articles, including the frank but good faith discussion of what is commonly called racist, homophobic or transphobic views published in reliable sources that clearly can improve articles. Naturally the precise same policies ensure than all editors are free to use Wikipedia's talk pages to include the frank but good faith discussion of anti-racist, pro-gay or pro-trans equality views published in reliable sources for the purpose of article improvement. Editors are not free to publish their personal views about minority groups which breach our common understanding of WP:5P4 and it is likely to be a breach of other policies, some of which is discussed by others in the current Arbcom clarification request and existing motions and amends.

Nowhere have I said that articles like Woman or Trans woman would cease being open to discussion. What I do advocate is a better understanding of how policy can better apply to those discussions, without needing to hamper the purpose of those discussions.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

P.s. after reflection, I realised that I do not understand why you used the term "litigate". I believe you are using it as a synonym for something like "argue" or "debate", could you clarify what you meant? It has a meaning that I think is unintentional. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I had taken "litigate" to mean that you had escalated a discussion from article talk: or AfD to the sort of pages which Must Not Be Named and are only addressed by their ALLCAPS acronyms. The implication being that this is a form of meta-discussion about talk: pages, and where the stakes were raised: in particular where sanctions against your opponent editors (and I use that term deliberately) were more easily available.

If that was indeed DIYeditor's intended use of the term, then I saw it as particularly apposite in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Meh: I think Fae has been a bit of a bully, but I don't think it merits this particular sanction. I'm not sure any sanction is really necessary at this point. I'm more willing to let the discussion in this thread serve as notice that there are genuine concerns with Fae's behavior that are not mere posturing in the midst of an ongoing content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Mendaliv, I second your "meh". I suppose I can see a reason for some of the concerns, but I do think it's overblown and doesn't merit sanctions. It's been said that Fae sometimes uses the wrong method to achieve the right goal, but I don't think this case is the best example of that. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban consideration

• Support topic ban on human sexuality and gender per ongoing discussion (note the “and gender” part). I’m sorry, but I agree with the others below that Fae’s sudden contrition isn’t enough here, particularly in light of the long history of trouble in this topic area. It’s time to deal with this before more editors are driven out of the topic area. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Bullying How much bullying merits sanctioning? How much do we tolerate? Why do we tolerate it at all?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Prefer topic ban I see no ownership by Fae of their negative behaviors. Instead they are simply saying they will take a break from this dispute with no aknowledgement of wrong doing. Given the number of times they have recently been to ANI and their sanction history I have no doubt they will be back. I find the accusations/implications that others are transphobic or that their actions are such to be especially chilling. I think a topic ban makes more sense than a warning as the number of previous ANIs and talk page discussions (including those on their own talk page) should have been the needed warning. Do keep in mind that Fae is a very experienced editor and absolutely should know better. Springee (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This post raises some very good points that I'll have to think about and come back to. I might be swayed to support a tban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an odd statement, I positively acknowledge wrongdoing above as part of withdrawing from and unwatching the discussions about the highly controversial article and discussions that are associated with it, my sanction history is literally ancient as the record shows, and I have made no accusations or implications that any Wikipedian is transphobic.

  Per DIYeditor's opening statement in this thread, "the ability to advance or even discuss relevant points of view" must include the ability for editors to discuss frankly the actions of the sockpuppet master that has successfully disrupted these transgender articles, and created this one using a sockpuppet, and more generally for LGBT+ identified people to frankly discuss sources which do make transphobic attacks and do objectively contain transphobic material, including stating that reasoning frankly in edit comments when removing material per WP:BRD. These should not automatically be read as personal allegations against other editors that may add those sources to articles, possibly without realising exactly what the issues are with those sources. Perhaps I more fully and wholeheartedly agree with DIYeditor on these principles than they realised. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer topic ban the chilling behavior is unacceptable and there is no reason to believe that it will go away on its own. At some point, enough bullying is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• No Regardless of how it currently stands, this article was created as an attack page by a blocked editor who clearly wants to use Wikipedia to spread humiliating and salacious claims about trans people. It doesn't represent a "legitimate viewpoint", it represents an unquestionably bad faith effort to doxx someone. Editorial recklessness has sort of rendered the request to oversight this stuff moot at this point, but Fae is correct to think a lot of that material could normally just be oversighted, and I think admins need to be taking a firmer hand with addressing rumor-mongering about trans people. Fae bludgeoned the issue, and now they've said they'll stop. Nblund ^talk 12:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  The origin of one of the articles/talk pages in question doesn't excuse the behavior nor is this isolated behavior. Springee (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  The arbitration request wasn't about the article, it seemed to be about shutting another editor down, and it is just a pattern of behavior. The article is not great I agree. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Please add your views to the open Arbcom clarification request. If you can spell out why the request looks like it is was created for "shutting another editor down", that can legitimately inform Arbcom's decision, and if proven Arbcom can recommend actions, if needed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose While I have myself been frustrated with Fæ, who I feel may be something of their own worst enemy in this particularly contentious area, it's deeply inappropriate to characterize their actions as bullying. Rather, they've been incensed by the way that Wikipedia is being used to draw negative attention to a private individual who happened to attract the ire of one of Canada's most powerful media conglomerates. While their actions at WP:BLP/N may have been somewhat counterproductive, they were certainly not bullying anyone, rather they were speaking with genuine passion about something where Wikipedia should be showing considerably more restraint than it does. And frankly, considering how frequently Wikipedia allows BLP notability to be decided by the causes célèbres of a small number of influential media players, often in blatant contravention of WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENTCRIT, I don't see their distress here as misplaced. While I hope Fæ will listen to some of the advice that supportive editors including myself and Nblund have offered them, I don't think this is appropriate for WP:AN/I at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  I am not intimately familiar with the history of Fæ aside from a very few encounters. I noticed that I felt a little bit "avoidant" of them. I noticed other people are complaining here about their behavior. My main issue was about how they seemed to try to shut down Pyxis Solitary (on BLP/N and Arbitration not in the waxing article). It's true that the waxing article might be better off deleted but that is tangential to some of the discussions that occurred. I certainly have no reason to support a TBan; I was trying to offer a solution. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Simonm223, thank you--this is valid. One thing, though: I appreciate your "causes célèbres", though I wonder if the plural in English needs that final -s. I'll investigate. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think that bullying is appropriate even if it's in the furtherance of righting great wrongs. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  I can't speak for Simonm223, but I believe this isn't bullying. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"causes célèbres" is the accepted plural

Indeed, Simonm223 et aliae ( [sic]), "causes célèbres" seems to be the accepted plural in English of Cause célèbre, though it strike me as counter-intuitive. See, for instance, "inspector general", another French loan--"general" is, as we all know, an adjective in the French phrase, and consequently not pluralized in English. Thus, "inspectors general". The case for "causes célèbres" must therefore be different; I propose that it is possibly true that the entire plural was loaned from French along with the singular. It seems there was a wave of French publications [note: I will supply URLs to Google Books and JSTOR; full citations on request, for $20 per citation, to be PayPalled to my Cayman Islands account) in the 1700s, on this topic and with the "causes célèbres" spelling: [280], [281], [282]. Google Books provides a number of hits for English titles with that spelling in the 1800s: [283], [284], etc. What this needs is obviously a full bibliographic search in both languages with a timeline, and then an investigation into the connections--institutional, educational, authorial, etc., before my point can stand successfully: that such publications in French helped introduce this uncommon plural into English. Who were these English authors? What did they read? Why this pseudonym, "Civilian"? I fear the only person who can solve this is Uncle G. As for English usage, the American Bar Association Journal ran a series of articles in the 1920s called "SOME AMERICAN CAUSES CELEBRES" (articles which should be used in our article on the phrase): [285], [286], [287], [288]; in addition, a review from 1930 in the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology uses it as well ([289]), so I think we can say confidently that at least in American-English legal usage "causes célèbres" is well-established, and for historians this seems to be the case as well. I encourage Wiktionary editors to either include a link to this note or to supply a better one for their entry, but that's by-the-by. At the risk of overdoing the by-and-bys, there is much work to be done still, first, and second, this is one of the occasions where the online dictionaries I looked at were correct, though they never indicated why. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both this and the topic-ban. While Fæ can clearly be rough to deal with and could stand to tone down their rhetoric sometimes, the problems they're dealing with are real - as illustrated by the extremely low quality of sourcing others were trying to add to this article, something that honestly ought to be a more serious concern on a WP:BLP and seems like it might almost require a WP:BOOMERANG. But I particularly and strenuously disagree with the argument that Fae should be sanctioned for believing "woman" means only "cis woman" to be a very basic and offensive example of a transphobic (in any sense) statement; that is a common enough perspective that it is at least reasonable for an editor to hold that view and to advocate for policy or sanctions based on it. WP:CIVIL obviously bans transphobia; and it seems to me, at least, that denying that trans women are women is textbook transphobia and, therefore, sanctionable, especially if repeated over and over when interacting with a user who has asked you to stop. We can cover such views, and cite them to sources, and even edit alongside people who hold them, without having talkpages become forums to advance them, so the argument that it would have a chilling effect rings hollow - we wouldn't allow someone to argue on talk that homosexuality is a mere "lifestyle choice", for instance, or to present scientific racism as fact, yet we still have articles on those topics (and, indeed, editors who doubtless hold those views); this seems comparable to me. "I'm just stating what I believe" isn't an excuse for incivility, and Wikipedia isn't a random forum for people to spout off their views; if you know your views will be seen as uncivil and could drive off editors, keep a lid on it, take it to Facebook, Reddit, Twitter or wherever when you want to mouth off, and focus on improving articles via sources instead. --Aquillion (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok I think I see what you are saying about incivility, so this (the content that sparked the arbitration request AFAIK) may be a prohibited opinion? (specifically "trans ideology", no need to address it here) I didn't realize there was some nuance to the question but I can see now why there is. Of all the many opinions allowed on Wikipedia on user pages, that statement is possibly not allowed on an article talk page... On its own I agree there is no problem with advocating that such be prohibited, or that people not be allowed to say anything like that they believe trans women aren't women. It is a strong stance to take but I can see why that is a valid policy decision and valid thing to argue for. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it's borderline; it's the sort of thing that would depend on if they have a history of it and how they've responded to people asking them to tone it down. Talking about "trans ideology" is definitely stridently political to the point where it makes me wince - I would put it in a basket eg. consistently referring to an article's subject as a member of the "Democrat Party" or, perhaps more closely, saying that an article's subject isn't homophobic, they just oppose the "gay agenda" as if that's unambiguously a thing. It's a sweeping insult against people on the other side of the debate (and, in this case, to trans editors) and a bit of a chest-pounding announcement of the editor's own views. Everyone who edits controversial topics has a viewpoint on them, but we need to try and tone down the sniping and chest-pounding to edit constructively - and, to me, talking "trans ideology" is definitely sniping rather than constructive editing. Also, like "Democrat Party", it's a bit of a dogwhistle that people who aren't involved in the topic area aren't likely to catch. I don't think that just letting that kind of thing slip in occasionally requires sanctions or anything, but editors should stop when it's pointed out; repeatedly going off about "trans ideology" or the "gay agenda" or the like implies a degree of either unwillingness to abide by WP:CIVIL or even outright WP:NOTHERE. Talk pages aren't there for people to yelp snarlwords like that at each other; doing it over and over leads to a hostile editing environment. (And, conversely - do you think it would be appropriate for an editor to constantly talk about the "gay agenda" as if that was unambiguously a thing? If not, what's different about this?) --Aquillion (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • "Gay agenda" definitely has some sinister and uncivil connotations in the parlance of most people who use the term and it is inappropriate like you say. I'm all for people keeping their opinions to themselves on Wikipedia, especially when they might make others uncomfortable, so maybe I should have given it more thought. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
        • http://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/out-and-elected/1995/david-cicilline - "I was thinking of supporting your campaign," the man--a senior citizen and devout Catholic--told Cicilline. "But first, I want to know what your gay agenda is."
          "That's easy," Cicilline responded. "My gay agenda is for government reform, improving neighborhoods, and strengthening schools." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I was not going to involve myself in this ANI, but now that you linked my comment in the Meghan Murphy talk page I need to bring Fae's comment to your attention: "If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics." It's only fair that you read my response in BLP/N regarding the terminology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyxis Solitary (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"At beast, I think Fæ's behavior can be called over-zealous"

• I further disagree that this is really bullying. At beast, I think Fæ's behavior can be called over-zealous to a point where they are seeing potential threats to transgenders (a subject they are clearly passionate about) under every rock. Fæ's absolutely right that WP cannot a place to allow editors to freely insult and demean trans individuals - both off-wiki personalities and on-wiki editors. But at the same time, to develop articles, we may need to in good faith discussion external views that are hostile to trans individuals or the group as a whole. That discussion is all within policy as long it is it about improving article-space. Unfortunately, because Fæ seems to forget AGF and takes that discussion out of context, as to explain the discussion of these external views is hostile to views of trans individuals. WP is a "respectful space" (borrowing EdChem's term from the related AE discussion) and we will not tolerate editors insulting trans individuals, but this doesn't mean that we will not discuss material that may be insulting to trans individuals as long as it has a purpose. Fæ's recent actions seem to forget this, to the point where their talk page editing has become disruptive. Fæ may have focused on a few editors that have been more vocal in the matter, but I would not call that bullying. --Masem (t) 14:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• topic ban Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Info The Arbcom "GamerGate" clarification request has been mentioned here several times, for those that want to read the clarification request with respect to the use by Wikipedians of transgender related phrases like "transgender ideology", "trans identified male" or calling a trans woman a "biological male" as Wikipedia accepted statements of fact, outside of discussions about source material that makes those statements, can find the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate. Diverse statements that can inform that discussion are welcome. --Fæ (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed is warranted. Fae's PoV about gender-related subjects has turned into WP:BATTLEGROUND too many times. Who among you that wants to exculpate his behavior has been subjected to:
  • "Just to help everyone understand the wider pattern here, @Pyxis Solitary:, have you blogged or posted about this deletion discussion anywhere?" F1
  • "Could you address the serious question of canvassing please, have you been blogging about this topic off-wiki?" F2
  • "Could you state clearly that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes?" F3
  • Please state unambiguously that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes. If you obfuscate further, or continue just replying by throwing the chaff of counter accusations in the air, then everyone can and should draw the conclusion that you have canvassed other people, per the definition agreed in WP:STEALTH." F4
  • "this has all been one-sided for those that are lobbying exclusively to the benefit of political radicals against transgender equality, like Meghan Murphy. Thanks so much. If you have received any canvassing emails, or have been in coordination with anyone off-wiki about these articles or these consensus processes, please make a full statement."F5
  This behavior needs to end. It doesn't matter how many years someone has been an editor, it doesn't matter if someone has made thousands of edits, and it doesn't matter if someone is a former admin -- no one has the right to threaten other editors or interrogate them. I am not going to fill this discussion with links to all the times that Fae has belittled editors when they push back. I know editors who stay away from editing gender-related articles when they see that Fae is involved in them. A slap on the wrist is not enough. Not any more. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC); (clarified bold response) 15:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  You might have been wise to leave this particular text-wall out of this discussion. Your passionate defense of the term "trans ideology" - which seems at casual inspection a transphobic dogwhistle - certainly helps to contextualize that Fæ has not been alone in the process of escalation at BLP/N - and comments like that can be seen as having unnecessarily inflamed the situation. And while Fæ would be well advised to read WP:BAIT - it certainly doesn't support a t-ban to show us the exact bait that was used. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Maybe you're not following the discussion closely, but it was another editor that linked to my comment in the Murphy talk page, and it was that editor that stated "trans ideology" in this discussion. You're dead wrong if you think that I don't have a right to respond to any comment wherein I have been referred to by name or by linking to a comment I made. "Trans ideology" is the same as "gender identity ideology", they're interchangeable terms, and both have been discussed in many articles, including academic. As an ideology it falls under identity politics. Lesbian feminism is lesbian ideology. We are not forbidden from mentioning the existence of an ideology. Masem said it best in "Clarification request: GamerGate": "talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden." M. You really think I spend my time in talk pages itching for Fae to come along and start a confrontation? Insinuating that I baited anyone, particularly Fae, is bullshit and a personal attack. The only one blowing a dog whistle here is you. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. Similar points were made in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate, by yourself, as well as on BLP/N and probably other places I have forgotten. Canvassing has been shown to be a matter of fact. It was widely condemned, including by those that were unnecessarily pinged and emailed. Asking reasonable questions to shine a light on blatant use of canvassing, with a background of sockpuppetry that was actively manipulating article content and discussions solely about transgender issues in order to deliberately bias that content and consensus processes, is fair. As it was clear what the evidence of canvassing was, those questions should be allowed without being re-pitched as personal attacks, or as if it there might not have been unquestionable evidence of the canvassing and checkuser confirmation of sockpuppetry. In the particular case of Meghan Murphy, it was confirmed by statements from the sockpuppet master, and recently by an administrator, that Meghan Murphy was emailing Wikipedians about the BLP about themselves. This is not a controversial statement. It is not an attack against you. it has always clearly been about establishing the facts and finding ways of counteracting the stealth canvassing, including the known targeted off-wiki abuse against Wikipedians clearly intended to drive them off improving transgender related articles, and the effects of sockpuppetry and possible meat puppetry.

  As I have stated repeatedly, I am not your enemy. I have even reverted targeted abuse against yourself and warned the account doing it. I agree with you, the topic is a battleground due to the actions of many parties, including hostile off-wiki and stealth manipulation of consensus processes. It would be more beneficial to focus on attempts to reduce the likelihood of over-inflaming discussion by better policies, this is precisely what I am attempting to do with the Arbcom clarification request for this topic. A valid attempt at improving consensus is the opposite of creating a battle ground, it is not bullying anyone, and you or anyone else can contribute to that process of improving the environment we spend our volunteer time in for the benefit of open knowledge.

  (ec) The person raising this thread has changed their own views during these discussions, an excellent example of the important of being open minded to evidence and challenging views. Why not let the stick drop? We can focus on how Wikipedians can work collegiately when the topic is as inflammatory as someone banned from Twitter for "hateful speech", and us Wikipedians need to find a way of ensuring a balanced encyclopaedic article that correctly covers that material, without being lost in circular and polarized debate about whether "word" means "word", or what we think might be in other contributor's heads. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I did not say anything in my "Clarification request: GamerGate" comment about canvassing. As for the rest of your wordiness, I've learned by now that you're a spigot that needs to have the last drop. So ... the end. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Fæ, I assume you are referring to me as the one who changed my views. I did come to understand that, in isolation, it would be totally within reason to advance the position that it is uncivil to state as fact or as one's own opinion that there is a "trans ideology" (or the better example of "gay agenda") at play. I don't necessarily agree with that position and think it may stifle discourse. However, I think the question remains as to whether it is, taken with overall tone and behaviors, a part of a pattern of you trying to squelch opponents in this topic (or promote a certain POV) with any means at your disposal. Any specific behavior, taken on its own, may not rise to the level of needing any repercussions, and I am not familiar with all of the history here or what the prior topic ban was based on. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on transgender related articles. I do not see a genuine apology or regret from them, and I think they know they are in trouble and are trying to avoid real sanctions. The discussions I was going to link to have all been linked to above so I won't repeat that here, but every interaction I have had with this editor, and every discussion I have seen them involved in, they have taken a belligerent and bullying tone. This has had a chilling effect on other editors; I know this for a fact. They clearly are intent on Wikipedia supporting their POV and to hell with anyone or any source who disagrees. They are far too emotionally invested in this subject as an activist and attempting to "right great wrongs." They should know better by now. I think they need more than a slap on the wrist. They have harassed me on my talk page here accusing me of being a sock puppet, and here less than an hour later giving me official alerts about things they already told me about previously. Here they falsely accused me of having an "anti-queer politics spin". -Crossroads- (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed, or at least from gender-identity topics. This sort of behavior has been going on for years across the entire topic area (not just the trans subtopic), and is what got that editor in trouble in the first place. The TB was lifted provisionally, under the explicit condition that the behavior not resume, but Fæ went right back to it, and focuses on the same kind of disruptive, activistic misuse of WP to advance a sociopolitical viewpoint. The viewpoint being popular among editors is not a justification. 107.204.239.99 (talk) [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed, the user is so hot on the topic that they seem unable to step back, also they are creating a lot of disruption in the topic area, seems it was a mistake for whoever removed it, was arbcom as far as I recall. I don't usually comment to support editing restrictions, I prefer to work it out but this was one that should never have been lifted. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed Can't learn, won't learn. Jtrainor (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstate topic ban Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed gnu57 20:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban Fæ from human sexuality, broadly construed. On this topic, Fæ's behavior unfortunately does not help foster a constructive, polite wikipedia editing environment. XavierItzm (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstate topic ban. This has been a quesiton of when, not if, for some days now. Fae does not appear to be willing or able to dial back the rhetoric and righteous indignation. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstate topic ban for this inveterate content warrior. NPOV is an essential component of WP and I have no confidence that this editor can ever contribute NPOV content on this topic. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic Ban. My personal experience with their battlefield mentality has come at Talk:TERF, where they implied that I was "hijacking" the article with a proposed edit by obvious lobbyists, canvassers and meatpuppets, accused me of forum shopping when I tried to start dispute resolution, and heavily implied that I had created a sock account. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed (meaning to cover gender identity politics too, especially gender identity politics). Fæ has been very unpleasant to interact with. Of all the inaccuracies the editor has said or implied about my motives or actions, partly highlighted by Pyxis Solitary higher up, this editor also claimed that because I mentioned transgender editors being a part of the disputes on trans topics, including BLPs, saying "transgender editors" is "an humiliating and hostile attack against all transgender Wikipedians" and "is just an attack against a minority group based on 'dislike'."[290] I don't dislike trans people. I could go on about the trans folks in my life and how I care about them, but Fæ would just spin that as an "I'm not racist because I have black friends" thing. Or someone else might. So whatevs. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Your negative and repeated claims about "transgender editors ... say the the opposing side has less weight" is an humiliating and hostile attack against all transgender Wikipedians. In these claims you have yet to produce any evidence, such as diffs, or statistics, to support any such claim about a minority group of editors. This is a matter of fact, not a rationale to topic ban the person who is trying to draw the Wikipedia community's attention to how badly issues like this are handled, or how it is virtually impossible to get anything done about this behaviour which is "theoretically" forbidden but in practice never even results in a warning. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

    Yeah, ya choose to reply to me with more baseless rhetoric. The evidence from Talk:TERF and Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics shows certain folks talkin' bout how TERF views have less weight (when the non-TERF views are mainly coming from a bunch of opinion pieces too) or how British/UK sources have less weight because TERFs are apparently more powerful in Britain/the UK. This view prioritizes American sources and even Canadian sources over British/UK sources. The evidence shows certain folks ignoring WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE at those two pages and pages like Talk:Meghan Murphy, Talk:Julie Bindel, and Talk:Mermaids (charity). And now something is finally being done about it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard because others see it too. Folks know how to check the archives if the current material on the talk pages doesn't elucidate. I don't have ta dig up any diffs for crap that you know is there. The reasons folks wanna topic ban you is higher up. Now buh-bye. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

    • I was trying to remain silent on this ANI, but I will point out that Halo Jerk1's blanket comments about "transgender editors" and Pyxis Solitary's comments about "transgender ideology" were both UNCIVIL and deliberately provocative AFAICT. I am not inclined to excuse Fae's behavior in this space, but Halo Jerk1's repeated forum shopping and Pyxis Solitary's GamerGate-like insistence on unsubstantiated and essentially conspiratorial agendas are both unconstrictiVe for these articles and the overall situation should be taken into account in evaluating Fae's responses. Pyxis solitary compared "gender identity ideology" to "lesbian feminism" above, which is simply absurd: "lesbian feminism" is an actual, albeit minor, faction and self-described label among feminist lesbians. As has been pointed out, "Trans ideology" is more akin to "the gay agenda" or "Cultural Marxism" - a smear with a veneer of conspiracy theory behind it. That Pyxis would double down on their commitment to this smear, even after this was pointed out and even at ANI, is an example of the difficulty many editors have separating their individual POV from their talk page interactions in this space. The problem is not all with Fae. Newimpartial (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

      You saying this again? Oh brother. You don't know what WP:Forum shopping is. Where the hell did I forum shop? Notifying relevant pages is not WP:Forum shopping. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is against "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively." Notifications for a central discussion, per WP:TALKCENT, is not "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively." That's why WP:FORUMSHOPPING says, "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." My notifications were extremely brief and neutral. Your attempts to throw shade are just as poor as your understanding of the guidelines and policies. You say "trans ideology" is more akin to "the gay agenda"? Bollocks.[291] We agree that "the problem is not all with Fae." You have been a major problem at these articles too. The talk pages don't lie. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

      I would encourage anyone that is thinking about appropriate sanctions in this area to review those Talk pages. I am confident that I have maintained a commitment to policy, reliable sourcing, FRINGE and BALANCE issues and BRD against the tendencies of various participants to either shut down discussion pre-emptively or to raise circular and poorly-sourced arguments. In any case, I have seen admin in this discussion recognising that "trans ideology" is a baiting word and not a real thing. Are you taking Pyxis Solitary's position on this, Halo Jerk1? That will be good to know, the next time you are at ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

      I'm ignoring this distraction now. I also encourage folks to look at your behavior and arguments about sources at these pages, such as your belief that "It is also worth noting again that is a BLP of a Canadian subject, so the way terms are framed in specifically UK sources (where trans-exclusionary sentiment among feminists is stronger, according to our TERF article) does not necessarily apply to the subject if this article."[292] Ah, and to look at "the tendencies of various participants to ... shut down discussion pre-emptively."[293][294][295]. The term "trans ideology"? Was my "bollocks" comment and pointing to this[296] not clear enough for ya? Admins have opinions just like everyone else has opinions. Many admins have said their opinions don't carry any more weight than others' opinions. As for ANI, I have a very good feeling we'll be seeing you here again first. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

      Halo Jerk1, if I have to say it, then I have to say it: your "gotcha" diff from Pyxis Solitary does not show that "trans ideology exists"; it collects op-eds and FRINGE conservative self-published sources to show that (some) conservatives believe in Trans ideology conspiracy theory. The support for Peterson's (and GamerGate's) "Cultural Marxism" thesis is better, and WP (rightly) calls that a conspiracy theory in Wikivoice. There is no difference between you and Pyxis saying that editors are advocating "Trans ideology" and GamerGators accusing editors of "Cultural Marxism". It is all bollocks. And you and Pyxis were using UK sources that didn't even mention a BLP subject (Murphy) to dictate what the terms used by the actual Canadian and US sources should be understood to mean. That is where the horse excrement lay,in that discussion. Please don't quote me out of context as dismissing sources which didn't even mention the BLP subject as if that fact weren't salient. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

      Also, you have three links that show me participating (lightly) in discussion and certainly not shutting it down. Hmmm. I guess it's always important to look at the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You got into a spat with Crossroads1 at Talk:Attraction to transgender people.[297] A source from Andrew Sullivan was eventually worked into the page. AT BLPN, you said "What Pyxis Solitary has done here is to assemble a collection of non-RS op-eds and screeds in conservative blogs."[298] How is this[299] source from Sullivan a blog or unreliable? And when, as a gay man himself, he speaks of the worry that gay men and lesbians have in terms of "transgenderist ideology," is he just being transphobic? Is he being transphobic at all? If so, why? For talking about the view that some trans folks have? Not all trans folks think that a non-trans person should be sexually attracted to transgender people, and, if they ain't, then the non-trans person is transphobic. However, some do. Not all trans people think that there are no issues with a trans woman competing in women's sports against non-trans women, but some do. So, in terms of either view, what type of ideology should we call it? It is an ideology, by the very definition of what ideology means, including in terms of politics. When Miranda Yardley, a trans woman (who prefers to call herself transsexual), talks about the worry some lesbian women have in terms of transgender ideology and says all folks "have the right to accept, critique and reject" it,[300] is she just being transphobic? Are you saying she has internalized transphobia? Also, you needn't mention how AfterEllen was deemed transphobic by some LGBT outlets after articles like Yardley's. I know. Anyhoo, and who says that conservative sources mean that the sources are unreliable? Where does the Wiki say that we should prioritize liberal sources over conservative sources? Should Sullivan's views be discounted because he's a conservative, even though he is speaking on something that affects gay men? I'm not conservative, but I don't see the Wiki saying "liberal sources are better." To kinda echo Pyxis, is The Economist conservative or a blog?[301] It's a British/UK source, but where does the Wiki say that we should prioritize American and Canadian sources over British/UK sources because TERF ideology is stronger in Britain/the UK? You said, "And you and Pyxis were using UK sources that didn't even mention a BLP subject (Murphy) to dictate what the terms used by the actual Canadian and US sources should be understood to mean." Not me. I pointed to a couple of sources in terms of "trans ideology" being used.[302] Do you have any good sources criticizing the term "transgender ideology" as transphobic or demeaning, like there are good sources criticizing the term "gay agenda" as homophobic?

As for shutting down discussion, you don't have to be the culprit for there to be culprits. However, you've aided and abetted. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, Halo Jerk1, what? I was responding to the specific sources provided by Pyxis Solitary that you cited in a diff - the discussion with Crossroads1 is on a different topic, and my edits on that page have nothing at all to do with those on Meghan Murphy or what we are discussing here (Crossroads1 has a tendency to remove sources that disagree with him, when they come from traditions or disciplines he doesn't like, and I was promoting BALANCE as can be seen on the Talk page in question). Just because someone uses the term "transgender ideology" doesn't make that thing real nor, on the other hand, does it negate what they may have actual expertise in, like their own experience of attraction.

As far as "Transgender ideology" is concerned, the fact that the term makes its way into Economist op-eds is no more surprising than "Cultural Marxism" being discussed in The Independent, and no more indicative. I can certainly produce the critique of the term, but ANI is not the place for that since there is currently no proposal to restrict the use of the term. Your UK sources discussing "Transgender ideology" were not strictly relevant to the application of the term to Megan Murphy, any more than the meaning of "liberal" in Australia or the UK would dictate to us how to use the term in a US BLP. And that was the context for my comment about Canadian sources, which you repeatedly cite out of context for reasons known known to yourself. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Newimpartial, seriously. See, what I said about reliable sources using the term "transgender ideology" is relevant to this discussion. You can characterize sources however you like, but if they pass WP:RS, they pass WP:RS. The Sullivan and Yardley articles are relevant, considering the claims in this thread that the term "transgender ideology" is transphobic or demeaning to trans folks. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Greenrd said something similar about not all trans folks subscribing to the same beliefs.[303][304] Plenty of trans folks use the term "transgender ideology" or "transgender politics," and they ain't all like Yardley. You only want to mention the word "opinion pieces" when the opinion pieces aren't your own pet sources. You have repeatedly used opinion pieces or sources of a likewise MO to present stuff as fact, including when trying to keep a controversial label applied to Murphy. Crossroads1 ain't the one who removes sources solely because he doesn't like them. He isn't the one who doesn't understand WP:BALANCE. Also, it's no surprise that you can't (rather than won't) provide any good sources criticizing the term "transgender ideology" as transphobic or demeaning, like there are good sources criticizing the term "gay agenda" as homophobic. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Halo Jerk1, those critical sources exist, but I am not going to produce them here because they have absolutely no bearing on this ANI discussion. You are the one making broad claims about that terms mean and how they are used, and your evidence is a pure pile of codswallop. You and Pyxis Solitary seem to have trouble understanding this, but op-eds and SPS (which is what the conservative blogs amount to) only become RS for our purposes when their authors are recognized experts in the field where they are writing. Literally none of your cited experts have any such recognised expertise - Pyxis was arguing that being a finance editor at The Economist granted some kind of imprimatur to discuss gender identity, which is purest malarkey. Your sources are not reliable, and the fact that you can't distinguish between expert and non-expert op-eds and SPS is a good reason for you not to edit BLPs and maybe try to avoid ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You ain't gonna "produce them here because they have absolutely no bearing on this ANI discussion." Riiiiiight. Smirks. You don't get to command what are or aren't reliable sources. There ain't one rule on the Wiki that says that conservative sources are unreliable. The Wiki speaks of WP:RSCONTEXT, but a lot of sources that Pyxis Solitary and other folks have provided, sources you disagree with, are appropriate for the contexts of what we've been talking about. The Sullivan source is absolutely appropriate for the issue of gender identity politics, which is what has been discussed in this thread to a degree. That's why the source is appropriate for use at the Attraction to transgender people page. Sullivan is also appropriate for commenting on some feminists issues, like he does in the source, if the material is on-topic. He ain't an unreliable op-ed. Besides, Pyxis Solitary and other folks have provided reliable op-eds from feminists who are experts in their field. But you label those as unreliable because you deem them TERF sources, or supporting TERF ideology, or because they're from Britain/the UK, where you say that the TERF ideology is much stronger/more powerful. The more I discuss with you, the more I realize that you don't truly understand the Wiki's rules and that you twist these rules to correspond to your POV. The Murphy case is a prime example. The TERF BLPN discussion shows that the way I've interpreted policies and guidelines on sourcing and attribution have been correct. Very few there agree with your views about sourcing in terms of Wiki's voice. That BLPN thread is a good reason for you not to edit BLPs and why you should maybe try to avoid ANI. Because of that discussion and your monumental screw up in terms of the Murphy introduction, I know it's best that folks (including moi) don't take any advice on Wiki rules from you. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• First of all — in case anyone thinks it was — the term "trans ideology" was not included in the Meghan Murphy article. My comment in the talk page was based on Murphy's own words: "I see no empathy for women and girls on the part of trans activists, that is to say, those pushing gender identity ideology and legislation." (in Views.) I've seen "gender identity ideology" and "transgender ideology" used synonymously in many articles I've found.
  You think "trans ideology" is "a baiting word" ... I don't. I see it as an offshoot of identity politics. Just because someone in a discussion thinks "transgender ideology" is the same as saying "gay agenda" does not make it so. And contrary to your opinion, lesbian feminism is an ideology, even if you think it's a "minor, faction and self-described label among feminist lesbians."
  However, a different point of view does not give any editor the right to attack another editor. I wrote a comment, and Fae came at me with guns blazing. The vitriol was over the top. And then Fae kept pushing at me: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5.
  How did I respond to this? P1, P2, P3, P4, P5.
  Fae created the toxic environment. Fae has a pattern of accusing, threatening, and interrogating editors, which creates a tense and incendiary atmosphere.
  As for you, stop following in Fae's footsteps. Your accusing one editor of "forum shopping" and another of "GamerGate-like insistence on unsubstantiated and essentially conspiratorial agendas" is aggressive and hostile. But by all means, do invite everyone to look at the Meghan Murphy talk page, so they can see for themselves how you also engaged in edit warring. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  I am a staunch believer in BRD but have no objection to the attribution of terms that prove to be controversial, which is exactly what anyone will see if they go to the Meghan Murphy article and elsewhere. And if they go to the BLPN discussion, they will see me objecting strenuously to Fae's evidentiary basis for proposing the removal of Talk page discussion and for their policy basis for doing so, based on actual sources and principles. The idea that I am "following in Fae's footsteps" is quite laughable in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  "No objection to the attribution of terms that prove to be controversial."? You say that, but you edit warred to keep the controversial label in the intro, without any type of attribution. And now most folks at BLPN say they disagree with that direction. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed: Editing Wikipedia is not a contact sport. These problems seem pervasive and are not just limited to the conduct I complained about when I originally came to ANI. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to examine and take with full seriousness the diffs relating to any "pervasive problems" that I have caused and respond to that evidence rather than the various unsourced allegations made here. As far as I am aware, the diffs presented above only relate to the two articles with difficult disruption, canvassing and sockpuppetry. Any topic ban should be related to evidence, not only unproven assertions by those actively and heatedly in recent dispute themselves about transgender terminology over the last few days. The fact is that I have had no sanctions relating to my edits on transgender topics, or any topic in the last 12 months or even couple of years. Normally a topic ban for disruptive editors is accompanied by solid evidence of recent sanctions, not just discussions over the last week that a number of parties have made highly disruptive and offensive assertions in which amount to attacks on transgender people. I have not been the only long standing editor to highlight and complain about this disruption. If there is a topic ban here, perhaps our community should now consider a topic ban for several of the parties involved in these discussions, in particular those using Wikipedia to make allegations about transgender Wikipedians in general, and those making statements that transgender people are part of an agenda or ideology, or that trans women are not women.

I suggest a 6 month topic ban would be good for all the parties who are visibly involved, rather than limiting this topic ban to one person who is already presenting the misuse of transgender language in an Arbcom request, and has been one of the few but not sole voices highlighting the inappropriate anti-trans unsourced assertions made by others? Obviously a topic ban would shut me up, which might be super, but that does not stop these anti-trans issues being real, and supported by firm evidence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the problem in a nutshell basically. "Topic ban everyone" is not a reasonable response to the complaints made, especially when you aren't identify who these users are. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

See? Perfect example of how Fae can't help themselves. Just a bunch of vague aspersions. Back to the same behavior and hasn't even been sanctioned yet! Most of the people in favor of a topic ban here have not been involved in these articles. This thread is about you (check the very top), not others. I suggest this time your topic ban be permanent, and be from all articles having anything to do with sex, sexuality, or gender. "Human sexuality broadly construed" is too narrow, as many people consider transgender as having nothing to do with sexuality, and these issues can crop up on articles related to cisgender matters, such as undue weight being given to certain activist favored terminology. Topic ban needs to be on sex, sexuality, and gender broadly construed. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: If simply bringing up the prospect that womanhood is defined by sex not gender as a position in a debate is grounds for block/tban, then how would assertions about restrictive vs. expansive definitions for woman have been dealt with at Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4#RfC on introduction or Talk:Woman#RfC: Article lead? Isn't that discussion a legitimate editorial topic in the phrasing of an article? Exactly how far removed from what appears to be one's own POV does such an assertion have to be, and what about assertions that might only seem to imply that? I don't think someone is victimizing trans editors (being uncivil) by discussing such a point of view in a discussion that is necessarily about reasonable interpretations of the meaning of a word. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not Fae, but my take on this would be the position that "Woman" could be defined by sex, or by gender, or by either depending on the context, is a legitimate editorial topic and any position within that terrain should be heard (in a policy- and evidence-based discussion). On the other hand, the position that gender or that gender identity does not exist is FRINGE, and deploying such a position to dismiss, taunt or otherwise bait our editors is a violation of CIVIL, no matter what one might believe in the privacy of one's conscience. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

^agree. —DIYeditor: I think reasonable people can debate where to draw the line, but I think there were topic bans and blocks handed out partly on the basis of comments made by some editors in that thread, and there are a number of bullshit digressions (commenting on specific trans women's larynxes etc.) that added nothing to the policy discussion. From my perspective, Fae's real transgression here was calling for formal sanctions when trout would suffice, but they are hardly the first person to suggest that certain POVs are so disruptive that expressing them might warrant sanction(see: WP:NONAZIS). Nblund ^talk 16:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed. Fæ has regularly tried to suppress expression of views opposed to his own with Trumpian claims of harassment and related poisoning of the editing environment. And proposing that editors who support the topic ban should be topic banned themselves is perfect Trumpian projection. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: In fairness to Fæ, they prefer they/them pronouns, and I feel we should still respect that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  • You know, I've had a long run of unpleasant encounters with Fæ and their alter ego Ash over the years, and during all that time they identified as male and were uncontroversially referred by male pronouns. It's been a few years since I was more than incidentally involved in a discussion with them. It frankly goes well beyond what can be reasonably be expected to check as to whether an editor one has engaged with for years has changed their preferred pronouns. And respect was not something that marked Ash/Fae's comments to and about me. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really asking you to check. I'm informing you now, so you could amend the original comment if you so choose. If you want to hold whatever stuff Fæ did in the past against them, that's irrelevant to me. I just ask you at least do the kindness of respecting their choice of identity when it comes to pronouns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose the topic ban being "broadly construed" because that phrasing employs a slang term demeaning to women. It should be "womanly construed". EEng 02:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I object to your opposition as fundamentally and transparently broadist. -- Begoon 11:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Casting of ass

persians

-EEng

• Topic ban - this is the last straw for me. Constant drama-mongering, revisiting old disputes, insistence on being correct, castings of aspersions etc. And it happens across multiple talk page and noticeboards every time, usually because they open a multitude of fronts in either an attempt to bludgeon their opinion or confuse everyone else. I, for one, usually end up being utterly confused. I'm sure they do some good stuff but trying to find it amongst all the noise has been difficult. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban (at a minimum) - Per the above !votes; It is not my wont to support sanctions on editors, but with this we have clearly reached the "enough is enough" stage. - Ryk72 ^talk 12:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• TBan from human sexuality, broadly construed - Per all above. I genuinely believe that he has good intentions, but the rhetoric is way too much and he is his own enemy. ∯WBG^converse 16:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  They/their/them. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

So the article has been deleted, per the clear NOCONSENSUS outcome at the AfD.

But was it really appropriate to delete the Talk: page at this point, during the on-going wrangling over Fae's topic ban? What happens next? ANI closes it as "There is no evidence"? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I learned from another article for deletion discussion that nothing is ever truly "deleted" when an archived copy exists. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Admins still have access to the history. Besides, the complaints cover more than that article. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The deletion is currently being appealed at Deletion Review, so it may come back. The final tally was 24 Keeps, 20 Deletes, 4 "Delete or Merge." Definitely either a no consensus or a Keep. Should also be noted that the article was nominated 30 minutes after it was made, so many of the early votes were Delete as the article was basically in stub form at the time. Anyway, that's going on here. [[305]] Cosmic Sans (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Note for closing admin

Please remember that folks are using "broadly construed" to include gender identity politics. There are instances of this above, and the areas of concern higher up are about gender stuff. To quote Crossroads1, "'Human sexuality broadly construed' is too narrow, as many people consider transgender as having nothing to do with sexuality, and these issues can crop up on articles related to cisgender matters, such as undue weight being given to certain activist favored terminology. Topic ban needs to be on sex, sexuality, and gender broadly construed." Halo Jerk1 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.