Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darkknight2149 (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 2 July 2020 (→‎TPG violation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 4 years ago by Darkknight2149 in topic TPG violation
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Start a new discussion

    Disruption by MWise12 and Netoholic at Boogaloo movement

    Latest comment: 4 years ago60 comments18 people in discussion

    I thought about opening a report at ANEW because much of this issue revolves around edit warring, but it's a bit less cut-and-dried than issues I usually bring to ANEW.

    There has been continued disruption both from MWise12 and Netoholic over at the page about the Boogaloo movement. Both editors appear to be determined to whitewash the article away from describing the movement as "far right", and are continuously reverting without joining discussions on the talk page, or without gaining new consensus for contentious changes that have already been discussed at length on the talk page.

    MWise12 background

    MWise12 first appeared on the page to first soften the wording identifying the movement as "far right". I reverted, asking them to discuss on the talk page. At this point there had already been discussions about the descriptor on the talk page, largely from bad-faith SPAs but some in good faith; here is a snapshot of the page at the time MWise first made a change. I assumed at that point they hadn't seen the talk page discussions. However, MWise, instead of discussing, edited the page once more to remove the descriptor completely.

    They then tried to introduce WP:OR interpretation into the page regarding the 2020 boogaloo killings, by insisting on including a Facebook post by the alleged perpetrator, and there was a brief edit war:

    • MWise12 introduces the change: [1]
    • GW revert: reverted, summary This has nothing to do with the boogaloo movement. Details about this person/the incident could go at 2020 boogaloo killings, maybe, though I fail to see why the specific memes he posted on Facebook are encyclopedia material
    • MW revert: [2], summary It gives us insight into motive - this was not a "far right" attack.
    • GW revert: [3], summary feel free to draw your own personal conclusions from his memes, but that's absolutely not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:OR

    MWise12 then went over to the 2020 boogaloo killings page to try to insert the change there: [4]. I was growing uncomfortable with the edit warring and did not wish to step over the line, so I started a talk page discussion at Talk:2020 boogaloo killings#Meme, though another editor also found the addition inappropriate and reverted it as I was starting the discussion. In the conversation MWise12 did not appear to see any problem with his WP:OR analysis of the Facebook post.

    Netoholic background

    Netoholic first edited the page on 17 June, in what quickly also became an edit war in which they tried to remove the photograph at the top of the page.

    I will note for full disclosure that Netoholic posted on my talk page (User talk:GorillaWarfare#reverts) to write How many reverts are you up to today at Boogaloo movement?. I hadn't realized, but I had accidentally breached WP:3RR—I had not realized that reverts from the previous day had been within the 24-hour time span. Since then I have been more careful to check if I have reverted too much, and also more hesitant to revert in general

    I will note that Netoholic was rude and WP:ABF in the discussion, writing its sad an arbitrator is so disinterested in doing the right thing here (and is also pinging for backup) when I had suggested a potential compromise, and pinged the others involved in that very same discussion to see if they were okay with the suggestion. Throughout the conversation (see Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image), Netoholic moved the goalposts around what would assuage their concerns, making my attempts to come up with a suitable compromise completely impossible. However, my attempts to do so turned out to be unnecessary, as the discussion resulted in a pretty clear consensus to keep the original image in the article. I thought this was the end of it, until Beyond My Ken posted in that discussion: having failed to achieve consensus on this talk page to remove the image from the article, is attempting to subvert the Commons' deletion process to get what he wants, even though there is no policy-based reason for removal of the image there. Sure enough, Netoholic had opened a deletion request on Commons to try to subvert enwiki consensus. Though the discussion appears to be still open, aside from Netoholic it is unanimous that the image is appropriate and should be kept.

    Netoholic hasn't edited the article much besides this image issue and the June 26 issue I'm about to describe, though they have participated here and there in talk page discussions. In a conversation about how the article had received an enormous number of pageviews, Netoholic felt the need to insert the comment: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex. [5] I was surprised to see such a claim made by an experienced editor, who has apparently decided that the sourcing in the page is (at least in part) "fake news". It was also surprising to see this term apparently used in the same way as by Trump, to refer to news with which one disagrees. I suggested that if Netoholic was serious about such a change to the sourcing Wikipedia accepts, they should take it to either RSN or VPP, but it appears the comment was meant more as a snipe at the editors and less as a constructive suggestion of change. Full discussion is partway down the section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2#Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS.

    June 26 disruption

    In an attempt to keep this from getting even longer than it already is, I will not go into similar detail about the intermediate editing of the page. However I will note that both editors actively participated in talk page discussions throughout this time, and so were aware not only that there had been substantial discussion about the inclusion of "far-right" in the lead but also that those discussions had not resulted in consensus shifting away from using the term.

    Fast forward to yesterday, when MWise12 showed up again to undo a whole slew of work by myself and other editors: (edits between 2:09 and 2:48, 26 June 2020‎). This included, once again, removing the "far-right" descriptor from the lead. They did not initiate a talk page discussion before making this change once more. Another edit war ensued, this time with Netoholic showing up almost immediately after my revert to join in the edit war:

    • MWise12 removal, 02:48, 26 June 2020, summary Changed in light of new information
    • After making the change, MWise12 created a talk page discussion, 03:25, 26 June 2020. Discussion here continued while the edit war went on, see Talk:Boogaloo movement#Department of Homeland Security's statements
    • GorillaWarfare revert, 04:01, 26 June 2020‎, summary not without consensus
    • Netoholic revert, 04:17, 26 June 2020‎, summary far-right is disputed. WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion
    • GorillaWarfare revert, 04:22, 26 June 2020, summary per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". As I stated, there have been multiple conversations about this which have resulted in the descriptor remaining. If you wish to gather new consensus, feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. WP:STATUSQUO
    • Netoholic revert, 04:48, 26 June 2020, summary a lot of sources have come out in the last 10 days. There is no consensus, perhaps an RfC?
    • Britishfinance revert‎, 09:20, 26 June 2020, summary m, per Talk Page discussion, there is as yet no consensus to use this (given that most other sources conflict). thanks. BF
    • Netoholic revert, 12:16, 26 June 2020, summary per current talk discussion and a surprisingly large number of edit requests viewable in Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1, there is clearly controversy around this term. Please open an RfC rather than edit warring.
    • Britishfinance revert, 14:15, 26 June 2020, summary rv per Talk page discussion; there is no consensus for this edit (and evidence it is not appropriate). RfC not needed, just please don't edit war but get consensus on Talk Page. thanks. ~~~~
    • MWise12 revert, 16:14, 26 June 2020, summary Evidence is very appropriate; you have no consensus to keep this out
    • NorthBySouthBaranof revert, 16:20, 26 June 2020, summary return to prior consensus

    Now, I fully accept that it's possible the sourcing may have shifted away from describing the movement as "far-right", and posted earlier today to write that I intend to do a full audit of the sourcing in the page as well as a search through more recently-published coverage to determine if the weight has shifted away from describing the movement as far right. I also believe it is probably time to get formal consensus about the inclusion of the descriptor, though I want to do my audit first to determine if I still support it being used.

    However, I wanted to start this discussion around the behavior of MWise12 and Netoholic first, because the edit warring and disruption from the two of them is really getting in the way of constructive collaboration on the page. The refusal to discuss before making controversial edits, and the continuation of edit wars while discussion is occurring, is getting extremely disruptive. I will also note to any reviewing admins that the page is covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions, if that is useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Discussion

    In regards to the editing vs discussing, I apologize for being too quick to edit before discussing and will make sure to fix that in the future. However, I will point out that I didn't even come close to breaking the 3RR. I also disagree that we ever reached a valid consensus to keep "far right" in the lead. Just because I was too busy to continue debating for a few days does not mean I accepted your position. MWise12 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Your description of your behavior regarding Carrillo's Facebook post appears to continue to misunderstand WP:OR, a policy which begins by stating (emphasis mine) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Including this content to try to make claims about Carrillo's political affiliations, when the sources made no such statements, is OR.
      As I stated on the talk page, it's fine if you're too busy to continue a conversation. But the conversation was not just between you and I, there were other editors involved. Furthermore, if you believed consensus had not been achieved, you could have re-opened the discussion at any point rather than edit-warring your preferred version of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I reject the characterization of any of these edits as "disruption" - GorillaWarfare is simply using language priming to poison the well. GorillaWarfare has above admitted to violations of 3RR and cannot possibly characterize only one side of this as "edit warring" while trying to escape the same label. In fact, when content is disputed, the WP:ONUS is clearly on those seeking inclusion, and so any reverts seeking removal of disputed content are implicitly -less- "disruptive" than the reverts pushing the material back into the article. WP:BOOMERANG should be deployed and GorillaWarfare given a ban from the Boogaloo topic area for her disruption, edit warring, and misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      I honestly could not have asked for a better example of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that Netoholic has been exhibiting, which makes collaborating them extremely difficult. In this short paragraph they manage to:
      • completely sidestep any discussion of their own behavior
      • call for an unwarranted boomerang ban against me from the page
      • characterize my use of the extremely commonly-used term in dispute resolution, "disruption", as "using language priming to poison the well"
      • inaccurately state that I've admitted to multiple violations of 3RR — I did acknowledge a singular breach of 3RR that was not only accidental but only a violation in the strictest interpretation of the policy: nearly 24 hours had elapsed and it was a completely different day, and the reverts were on completely different edits to the page
      • incomprehensibly accuse me of "trying to escape" the label of edit warring—I listed my own edits in the groups of edits I described as an "edit war"
      • once again misuse WP:ONUS; I've already pointed out to them that that consensus was achieved, and now they've shown up ten days later to unilaterally state that there was no consensus. They could have reopened the conversation or started a formal consensus-gathering discussion, but instead they chose to edit war while also handwaving at "lots of sources" and claiming that somehow ten days elapsing rendered the previous consensus stale ([6])
      • falsely claim that repeatedly removing the content is somehow less disruptive, in contravention of WP:STATUSQUO ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo")
      • baselessly accuse me of "misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC" — I was already quite clear on the talk page that I intended to fully review the sources and then, assuming the weight of the sourcing still supports the "far-right" label, start an RfC. I started this ANI discussion because MWise12 and Netoholic were continuing the edit war (which I will note I stepped out of yesterday) while I was trying to urge everyone to discuss the issue like we're supposed to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Oh, that was Netoholic, fighting over that caption a while ago? I remember seeing that. And now they're edit warring over "far-right" and that DHS statement? The evidence for "far-right" is so overwhelming (I mean, in Military Times?) that these edits are simply ridiculous. The argument for that Facebook post is ridiculous as well, and suggests CIR. I think both should be topic-banned from the AP2 topic area, and I'd do it myself if I hadn't just scolded Netoholic for some disruption pertaining to the Dixie Chicks. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Drmies: Understood. I do not have the time these days to gather diffs, but many of those who watch this page will remember the histories of his many previous sanctions and dramatics. The first one I knew was when he tried to edit an absurd definition of "philosopher" into our article Philosopher so that, among other POV nonsense, he could call far-right blogger Stefan Molyneux a philosopher in the first sentence. Fortunatey he got a TBAN and the article now says "Molyneux ...is a far-right, white nationalist podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views." I mean, if anyone is inclined to post the evidence here, there would be no doubt what to do. Sorry, I will drop out now. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Drmies - "weird POV edits"? C'mon, that's so baseless its barely even an WP:ASPERSION. In the specific case of the article being discussed here, its clear from the current talk page discussion that the situation is not so cut-and-dry, and that there are valid points on either side. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Shit, SPECIFICO, you're right, and I remember that Molyneux nonsense. And I looked through the history (where I didn't find myself, not in that dispute), and that's like a time sink of 1500 edits. For the record, I closed a tiny discussion, see Talk page, Archive 8, not involving Netoholic. Yeah, I support an AP2 ban, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Netoholic challenged the label "right-wing" on boogaloos and the photo of Hawaiian shirts with military garb and guns. Both of these are very well documented. Back in 2014, the diff SPECIFICO was looking for was this one where Netoholic gives a right-wing racist his own platform to define himself in a friendly manner as a philosopher. These sorts of edits make me conclude that Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence. How low must he go before we ban him? I think we're there already. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • No idea why you pulled a random single edit diff out to make your point when you should have linked to the full RfC on use of "philosopher" which, by the way was -not- a landslide, but resulted in not using it - a decision I disagreed with and yet have upheld as consensus to this day. That is the -same- as I did for the issue about the Boogaloo image, and what I would do for the use of "far-right" in that article if an RfC later shows that consensus. My god, get some perspective - not everyone who is skeptical of strong terms being stated in WP:VOICE is "defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence". Holy cow - is this what political rhetoric has become? No quarter given, everyone is the worst extreme? This is not acceptable behavior, Binks - its BATTLEGROUND and I reject it. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Well, no, that's not the same as you did with the boogaloo image at all. When that discussion turned out in favor of the image being kept, you went to Commons to circumvent the outcome by trying to get it deleted there. This is the permalink to the discussion at the time when you started the Commons deletion discussion; it shows that you only initiated the discussion after the discussion here on enwiki had ended with agreement that the image should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment - I have had a few interactions with this editor that have been unnecessarily uncivil and ended with both parties edit warring. I think a history of combative, acerbic and uncivil editing is evident when looking at Netoholic's history. They rarely discuss issues at talk pages and when they do it's rarely civil. I feel like they are disruptive and unwilling to change, at least in regards to subjects relating to right wing politics. They are uncivil, frequently accuse other editors of acting in bad faith and regularly involved in edit wars.Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Ah here they all come. Since Bacondrum is casting ASPERSIONS without links, I'll have to contradict him. The ONLY article we've closely interacted was recently at Virtue signalling after he'd first nuked the content then submitted a ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtue signalling which SNOW-failed. Things didn't go his way - that's the only reason he's piling on here. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    And right on cue for the vitriol. Case in point - doesn't listen, doesn't want to change, not interested in being civil. A disruptive editor. Have a short look through their edit history, the combative and uncivil nature of this editors interactions with other users becomes clear very quickly. It's not Netoholic's fault they are being "piled on", it has nothing to do with their own behavior, it's everyone else's fault that they are constantly engaged in edit wars and other argy-bargy.Bacondrum (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Just look at some of the bad faith accusations directed at GorillaWarfare above. Anyone who has interacted with GorillaWarfare knows those are unreasonable and unfounded accusations. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Ah here they all come. I think that this outlook basically shows the problem. Yes, of course the AP2 topic area is contentious, but it's precisely because of that that we have to try and maintain at least some degree of civility and WP:AGF-attude towards each other, even when we strenuously disagree on matters of sourcing, weight, interpretation, and how to summarize these things; sometimes people with differing outlooks on the world can legitimately disagree on even the entirely-encyclopedic way to handle a contentious topic. You have consistently refused to extend that faith towards the people you disagree with on political topics. See eg. here, here, here + here, and here, just for some recent ones. --Aquillion (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • The diff-less accusations against me in this thread are what is uncivil and wildly-lacking of AGF (did you see "Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence" above?), yet you don't comment on them. You had to go back a month to find 4 diffs in my history (of which none are uncivil and, in fact, one is openly compassionate), some others are trying to go back 6 years. Is it possible that this thread, like happens too often elsewhere in AP2, piling-on and double standards are being used in order to just attempt to take a chess piece off the board? -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Hmm I've seen a whole bunch of diffs by now, and I don't think the chess analogy is very helpful here. You're badgering every single person here--there are better metaphors to use. You're not so much a chess piece as a big concrete block in the middle of a busy sidewalk. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • If I were silent, you'd say I had no defense or take it as a tacit admission of guilt; and the impartial readers would not know the context of why people might be piling on. I have the right to respond. Whats disappointing is that your analogy characterizes me as an immovable object which is simple 'in the way' - is that really fair? Is that how you AGF and treat me civilly? -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • The very fact that we are here, and I am giving reasons for why I think you should be banned from this topic area, means I have given up your good faith. Isn't that obvious? I believe you have a right-wing POV, at the very least, that renders you incapable of editing our articles neutrally, of following our policies, of participating in a collaborative project which aims to write quality encyclopedic articles. I don't know what's uncivil about that, by the way. I haven't called you names, although maybe you can guess what I think about people who abuse Wikipedia in order to whitewash articles on right-wing, far-right, white supremacist topics. So yes, I think you are in the way. In hindsight, the Molyneux business six years ago should have led to a (topic) ban. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • @Drmies: Just for discussion, is there anyone in this thread that you believe has a left-wing POV? And BTW, I am not right-wing - I simply think that strong POV language (sometimes anti-right, sometimes anti-left) in our articles should be tempered from extremes where evidence is not there to support it in our WP:VOICE. Even in regards to the original purpose of this ANI report, GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" - not even a majority - so our objections to its inclusion are at least reasonably valid (we'll see how the RfC turns out). I do nothing here on WP based dogmatically on my personal POV - hell, my interests are wildly esoteric and I don't even focus on political topics... unlike some editors in this thread that seem to dedicate themselves to that area daily. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You could always acknowledge that you have been uncivil and disruptive and try to do better in the future. Refusing to see the problem isn't helping. Civility and collaboration are cornerstones of Wikipedia, they are not optional. You make it really unpleasant for everyone else when you make acerbic comments and edit war, and it's not necessary. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Surely getting this many other editors noses out of joint should make you question how you are conducting yourself here? Bacondrum (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I remember butting heads with Neto last year over the Women-in-Red AFD thing, the NPROF thing, the WikiProject Men thing, and the Chairman/Chairperson move, among others. Neto was blocked in July 2019 for edit warring and after that, the account's activity was significantly reduced until March 2020. Plenty of good edits in March and April, but once they come into conflict, forget-about-it, back to the same old. Edit warring at Magdalene Visaggio and bludgeoning Talk:Magdalene Visaggio#Birth name; at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Edit war; at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and see various threads on that talk page; improper use of SYNTH tag and edit warring over it at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery (1 2 3); plus, the edit warring described above in the OP.
      Neto's first block for edit warring was 15 years ago. Admittedly, their block log isn't actually as bad as it looks at first (I guess we didn't have rules about wheel warring before 2006), but it seems whenever they actively edit, they actively edit war. Three edit warring blocks in the roughly one year between June 2018 and July 2019, and since their return to full editing in March 2020, it's quickly become a repeat of the same edit warring behavior. And it doesn't seem limited to AP2. I think a sitewide 1RR restriction would help reduce disruption. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In addition to or in place of an AP2 topic ban? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In addition to, I guess. My concern is if it's just an AP2 tban, Neto will change their topic area but not their underlying approach. For example, the stuff last May through Nov was gender stuff, not AP2, e.g. [7], [8] (discussing [9]), [10], [11] (suggesting, for lead image of Woman, [12] and [13]), [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Now it's AP2. What'll be next? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Those links are just discussions. Do you think my particular viewpoint on those discussions is what makes me deserve a sanction? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Can you really not see how your general approach is uncivil and combative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)
    @Netoholic: No, I don't. Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    A while back, I too had experiences like this with respect to pages dealing with the political views of college professors, and in particular, with the POV that US academia has been taken over by leftists. (Or maybe taken over by Drmies and me.) It's worth looking at Talk:Political views of American academics, and particularly Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC about HERI survey and Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC on inclusion of HERI data chart, where Netoholic tried to push such a POV, and his position was soundly rejected by the RfC respondents. There are similar discussions at Talk:Passing on the Right, about a book that takes a minority view among secondary sources, and at Talk:Neil Gross, a BLP about a respected scholar of academic politics, where I had concerns about BLP violations intended to discredit the page subject. Assuming that WP:ACDS#Awareness has been satisfied, it seems to me that an uninvolved admin should consider using DS under AmPol here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I dunno, all those links just show me participating in discussions and expressing various viewpoints that at best turned out to be non-majority in the RfCs, but hardly radical. "US academia has been taken over by leftists" is YOUR words, not mine - I've never said anything like that. I have to ask - do you disagree with the ample literature that shows that the population of left-wing academics far outnumbers right-wing? The scholarly data that shows that its a widely-held, majority view. But since you have identified yourself and Drmies as being left-wing academics, I have to ask, are you seeking sanction on me just to WP:USTHEM? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I never said anything of the sort about either Drmies or myself in that parenthetical joke. And I never called you radical. My concern has always been your failure to adhere to NPOV (whether you profess to see it, or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Netoholic Look, I think all most of us want from you is to tone down the bad faith accusations and stop leaving acerbic edit summaries, basically tone it down, be civil - we can disagree without the nastiness. And don't edit war, if you disagree, take it to talk and have a civil discussion. If you can agree to tone down the combativeness I think everyone would accept that in good faith and move on without further action needed. Believe me as someone who can also get carried away (as we both did recently), it's better to try and keep things friendly. We are not piling on, we are asking you to reign in the combativeness. Bacondrum (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I have as an individual Arbitration Enforcement action placed Boogaloo movement under indefinite 1RR. I have also topic banned Netoholic from the topic for 3 months and placed them on indefinite 1RR in that topic area. The community can, of course, choose to impose other sanctions. I have no comments at this time on Mwise or Gorilla Warfare. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Sorry, but having been away, am only seeing this now. I have edited on this article with GW, and concur with the evidence posted by GW above. Both editors demonstrated a sustained desire to whitewash this article regardless of any factbase (or even consensus), put forward, including:

    • The forum-shopping regarding the attempt to delete photograph showed an extreme determination, which even the Wikicommons community objected to here.
    • Bad faith statements noted by GW above that: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex, despite the good referencing in the article.
    • Repeated attempts to re-insert a controversial DHS tweet into the lede, despite having no consensus for it, that it conflicted with a large number of references from WP:RS/P sources, and despite referenced concerns put forward them it was politically movitived (As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement).
    • The statement above GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" (i.e. as if every source has to call the movement far-right for it to be valid) is another example of an extreme determination to dismiss all evidence in favour of their own agenda (bordering on sealioning behaviour).

    I cannot see how such conduct is appropriate in the already difficut areas of AP2 editing. WP works when a discussion is had over references with a good faith desire to chronicle what they say – take away that good faith, and it collapses. GW is a strong editor, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to prove the obvious to these editors; I am not sure other editors (myself included), would have done that, particularly given the significant amount of IPs/SPAs that this article attracted all trying to whitewash it (eight most viewed page on the entire project) Britishfinance (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Britishfinance, wow. "fake news industrial complex" is way out there into WP:CIR territory - it's a complete repudiation of WP:RS. Guy (help!) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Britishfinance, thank you for that note. Your comment on "22 out of 59" supports something bigger than the narrow topic ban just instituted by Barkeep49 (though I appreciate it, Barkeep--it's a good start). Yes, that's one of those things where you can't decided if it's incompetence or POV-pushing, but I disagree with JzG--that's not just CIR territory, it's irredeemable POV pushing. I just ran into another example of this, small but telling: the proposal (which is getting overwhelming support) to move "Dixie Chicks", which Netoholic calls "a fanatic rush". No, we need a larger topic ban here, per AP2, on all the political and cultural material. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed that the "22 of 59" thing is bizarre—Netoholic has repeated it in several places now, despite me having pointed out that, like many articles, this article includes sources that are somewhat tangential and don't describe the movement directly. In this case that includes sources that describe: the meme but not the movement, the phrasal pattern "____ 2: Electric Boogaloo", and the 2020 boogaloo killings (which were originally not known to have any boogaloo connection). Additionally, NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out that I took a conservative view to counting the sources. A deeper dive into this is perhaps more appropriate for the RfC than here (link to the RfC, where I've addressed it in more detail), but it does seem to be a bad-faith attempt to portray extremely solid sourcing as a minority view based on numbers alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Sigh ... Netoholic continually exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I just noticed that after Netoholic failed to achieve consensus on enwiki to remove the lead image at Boogaloo movement (discussion), and after they failed to gain consensus on Commons to have the file deleted (discussion), two days ago they then cropped the already-cropped image on Commons to a point where it barely illustrates the subject: commons:File:Virginia_2nd_Amendment_Rally_(2020_Jan)_-_49416109936_(cropped).jpg (see the file history section). I'll note that they edited the image directly rather than creating a new file, presumably so the image change would not be noticed on enwiki. This seems to be a clear example of tendentious editing, especially given users had already expressed to Netoholic their disapproval that Netoholic had tried to circumvent the enwiki decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • Yes, I think Netoholic feigning innocence and claiming he is simply being piled on is gas-lighting. This editor has never acknowledged their frequent incivility or edit warring. Now there are apparant efforts to game the system being brought to light, at this point I think they are here simply to battle and push a right-wing agenda calling Wikipedia "part in the fake news industrial complex". After reading that comment and looking at the editors attempts to get around guidelines regarding images, I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks GW. I had not seen that. An(other) extreme action to take after being turned down at two fora. Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    GorillaWarfare, that's outrageous. Guy (help!) 16:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Just slap a WP:NOTHERE block on Netoholic and just get it over with. MiasmaEternalTALK 00:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • One last comment re claims by Netoholic that GorillaWarfare should be sanctioned for edit warring. I believe GW's history on Wikipedia speaks for itself, a diligent and high quality editor. If they have been edit warring it is for the same reason many people end up in edit wars with Netoholic - they've been goaded by a disruptive and uncivil editor who appears to be gaming the system. Bacondrum (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      To be fair to Netoholic, I actually believe the case in which I exceeded 3RR was primarily due to reverts of MWise12, not Netoholic. I did not pay close enough attention to how many reverts I was making in the time period, which was a failure on my part, and the responsibility for it is mine and not the other parties in the edit war.
      I understand Netoholic wishes to see me sanctioned for it (see their talk page), and I suppose that is a decision for reviewing admins to make. It does seem retaliatory on Netoholic's part, given they have only seen fit to pursue a sanction ten days after the incident now that they themselves have been sanctioned, and not closer to the incident when they could at least have argued such a sanction would be preventative. I've already said that I have been much more careful since that incident to watch 3RR and more hesitant to revert in general. I think this is evident in the June 26 edit war, where I stepped away after two reverts despite it leaving the page in a state that did not reflect the established consensus for several hours, and instead discussed the issue on the talk page for quite some time, eventually culminating in my doing an enormous review of the sourcing and starting an RfC to re-establish the consensus on the wording of the lead. If a reviewing admin wishes to discuss the incident more I'm happy to, otherwise I'll leave it at that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Barkeep's tban of Netoholic is good but insufficient. Netoholic isn't here to write an encyclopaedia; his agenda is to make the fringe seem mainstream. Tolerance of his behaviour is disrespectful to the people who're here to inform and educate the public in a NPOV way. Permablock please.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Help regarding edits by User:Febb011

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
    BLOCKED
    Febb011 blocked due to sock-puppetry along with other socks by NinjaRobotPirate (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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


    User:TheTruthExplorerZZ is disappointed by deletion of RPT Inc. (Bokaro) (a PR piece that failed WP:CORP) and supposed WP:SOCK User:Febb011 has started ranting about it at my talk page. See Special:Contributions/Febb011 has started arguing/harassing at User_talk:Amkgp#Is_RPT_Inc._(Bokaro)_now_improved?. Please help. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I am not disappointed by any deletion. I just is naturally asking why did ~ Amkgp considered my article for deletion. He is purposely and forcefully calling my discussions as 'Harassing'. You can see there's nothing such as harassing.
    Thank You.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruthExplorerZZ (talk • contribs)

      Confirmed to each other:
    One of them temporarily had a COI userbox but removed it. Seems a bit fishy to me. I'll block them all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette by User:Beyond_My_Ken

    Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

    This incident began with an editor boldly inserting a line into the QAnon conspiracy theory page. I had concerns about the relevance of the line on the page, and a possible violation of WP:SYNTH, so I reverted it. Instead of discussing the issue per BRD guidelines, user Beyond_My_Ken started an edit war with me. He then, ironically, posted an edit warring template warning on my talk page. In response I posted the same template on his talk page (I'm not sure if this is the correct procedure - please correct me if it's not, I am new to editing regularly) and ultimately ended up making a section on the talk page for the article as user Beyond_My_Ken should have done in the first place.

    This would have been the end of it, but on the talk page for the QAnon article, user Beyond_My_Ken then proceeded to disparage me and my motivations for editing, implying that I was purposefully "stripping" the article of "information that I don't wish to be seen by the reader of the article." This is pretty clearly an assumption of bad faith, and a nasty accusation to boot. I am on this site because I am interested in building a good encyclopedia, and I shouldn't have to defend these motivations against brazen and incorrect accusations. I don't want to get into the content dispute here since (afaik) this is not the purpose of ANI, but I do want to state categorically that my only goal was to improve the quality of the page and make it more consistent with other similar pages and with Wikipedia's guidelines. It's worth stating that the consensus on the talk page, it would seem, is that I was correct.

    I invited him to reword his unnecessarily insulting statement in a more civil way, or to strike it out, and waited several days. He has not done this. In the future I'd like to not be disparaged in this way, or have my motivations impugned without good reason. Thank you.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • The top of this page - "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." All of the edit-warring happened five days ago, and there was a small discussion on the talk page which hasn't been posted to for three days. I don't see an issue that needs urgent admin attention? Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Well, I was trying to be charitable by giving him a few days to fix his error by apologizing and/or striking through the offending text, since the article on Civility suggested this as a solution. That same article suggested I go here if that didn't work. What's the proper procedure for something like this? Is there a board for less "urgent" incidents? Sorry if I did something incorrectly - I just don't like that there's borderline slander against me sitting around on a talk page with no apology or retraction, and thought this was the correct procedure.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • You sure know a lot of wikibuzz words and buttons for someone with only 45 edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Thanks! I'm not actually sure what you mean by "buttons," but regarding "buzzwords" I have done a lot of reading on policy, since I'm trying to do things correctly. Were you by any chance implying something here?CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • Dennis Brown, asking loaded questions of this editor with their odd editing pattern, and their immediate escalation to ANI trying to get old BMK censured and even adopting some of BMK's editing habits? Dear me! Drmies (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
          • My escalation to ANI wasn't immediate - I asked for a retraction or apology on the talk page where the discussion was happening, then I waited three days for a response which did not come. He participated in that discussion with other editors during that time, having ample opportunity to see the request. If I did something wrong, please tell me what the actual process is so I can follow it next time. Is ANI an over-escalation in this case? What should I have do instead if I honestly believe someone is behaving uncivilly and insultingly towards me? For reference, I was doing my best to follow the list laid out in "Dealing with incivility" section of [19], which I took the time to read after this incident occurred. Should I have sought "dispute resolution" per step 7? My reading of the line seemed to indicate that I should go straight to step 8, ANI, since there was a very unpleasant accusation still sitting on the talk page. I want to be a good editor here, please tell me if I overstepped my bounds and, if so, what I should do next time.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
            This was a #7/walk-away, not a #8/emergency situation. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Remember, it takes two to tango. If someone is edit warring with you, you are both edit warring. But here, nobody broke the WP:3RR, and it was peacefully talked out. I don't see BMK's comment as particularly uncivil. Could he have assumed more good faith? Probably. But considering that you are a new editor in a super contentious area, please understand that people have some suspicions. Instead of reverting BMK, you should have immediately taken it to the talk page, which would have gotten a much more positive response. All in all, I see this as a general learning experience, and see no likely sanctions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • RE: two to tango - you're right. I suppose I was taking the stuff in the BRD page as more of a mandate than a guideline. In the future I'll do my best to seek consensus on the talk page first. Thank you. Regarding suspicions, it's certainly understandable, but I do feel like people ought to keep this sort of thing to themselves if they don't want to unnecessarily drive newer users away. From my perspective, I was just trying to improve the article (and consensus agreed it was an improvement) and in return I was insulted.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMary_Tyler_Moore&type=revision&diff=965390062&oldid=965389259 which was just posted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • The OP did what they were supposed to do: reverted a bold (and IMO questionable) edit. They got attacked for doing so. BMK does have a history of being fairly abrasive. A quiet note from an admin asking for somewhat more civil behavior wouldn't be badly placed. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    to be clear, the above comment refers to the QAnon issue, not the MTM one.Hobit (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Request lift of TBAN

    Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

    I am requesting a lifting of my August 30, 2019 TBAN on dogs. In the decision was written "They may reapply here after a period of 3 months for the community to reconsider the same."

    After having taken a several months hiatus from Wikipedia, I came back tentatively in December 2019, then strongly this March, and have been editing heavily since then. I haven't been accused of PAs or tendentious editing or advocacy or any of the other things that I was accused of in the ANI last year. Though I was told I could reapply after 3 months, I have allowed myself 10 months to pass before deciding to request it, both to be confident in my ability to work well with other editors (or walk away from hot spots) and to show others through my edit history (now 2,000 edits later) that I am here to build an encyclopedia and do so collaboratively. I have done a lot of observation and learning during this time, and can recognize what is acceptable and unacceptable within Wikipedia.

    In the meantime, I have worked on cat articles, tiger articles, snake articles, state forests, parks, enhanced several articles on various topics that were PRODed or AfD'd, voted on AfDs, cleaned up articles after translations from French, joined some WikiProjects, worked on a bunch of list articles (I love lists), a bunch of history articles, articles on NRHP places, added my first images in Wikimedia, learned all about roses, historic African-Americans, and am currently working on a set of list articles related to the George Floyd protests and the taking down of Confederate monuments.

    Please consider lifting my TBAN on dog topics. I am not particularly interested in working on dog breed articles, but occasionally I'm working on something that I'm editing across all articles (like the day I was hotlinking to an author using the author-link parameter, went through all of the cat articles but had to stop short because I couldn't do likewise for the dog articles he was cited in). Dogs are ubiquitous and very much a part of human life. I would also like to be able to just edit without worrying about whether or not someone is going to call me out on it because dogs might be involved, like the day I was editing animal sanctuary articles (tigers). I would like the freedom to be a Wikipedia editor without restrictions. I feel like whatever behaviors were present or were manifesting last year are not currently present, and my edit history will prove that I have the ability to edit in Wikipedia without getting caught up in similar problems.

    — Normal Op (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @Normal Op: You sound unsure of what behaviors needed to change/have changed. Can you be more specific about what you did before and what you will do different now? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Deepfriedokra: For what happened, please see last year's ANI. It was messy and I couldn't even begin to summarize it except to say "butting heads". What I have learned since then is a lot of how to deal with people online that you don't know, cannot see, and cannot directly interact with. With regards to Wikipedia, that would include recognizing that few things need fixing right now, not directly engaging those who hold strongly opposing viewpoints as yours, that I can let things slide and don't have to fix everything, don't take it all too seriously, and that arguing against the viewpoints of others won't win support from other editors but more likely will alienate observers from yourself. I have even learned some de-escalation techniques, both for self and for online situations. If I sound unsure, it's because I don't like eating crow (who does) and wasn't even sure if this was the right venue to ask to lift a TBAN. My request above was framed more about my current contributions and less about my old dirty laundry. Normal Op (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm mostly OK with this as long as you steer clear of pitbulls. Guy (help!) 21:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      ... and of course be very careful not to engage in any hounding or bitey behavior. EEng 23:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Note: Recycled joke, so no charge.Reply
    • EEng, I am responding while sitting on my sofa fully dressed, so I am also a joke recycler. Joking aside, I support lifting this topic ban, because the editor seems to understand how they went astray, and how to avoid that behavior. However, I must caution Normal Op that any disruptive editing in the area of dog bites or pit bulls or dog breeds or breed variants sometimes accused of being prone to bite will be met with a re-imposition of sanctions against you. You also need to be careful to use only the highest quality reliable sources. You were putting forward some exceptionally poor sources a year ago. Do not propose any sources unless you believe those sources to be reliable. It is disruptive to expect other editors to waste their time evaluating unreliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Support - Normal Op must realise that there will be increased scrutiny of their editing in that topic editor, at least to begin with. It needs to be understood that the TB can be reimposed if necessary, and if reimposed will be much harder to get lifted again. That said, the appeal shows that the editor has matured and learnt from past mistakes, so let's give them a chance. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Support Non-admin. Seems like they've figured out the issue. Note: on topics you are really passionate about, it is really easy to get drawn in again. Might be best to avoid your hot-topic issues. Hobit (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment: I very much appreciate the votes of confidence. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Rude editor

    Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

    Boro people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    One editor has reverted my edit with WP:BE tag. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/964873172 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:162C:3FF1:137B:5E68:7831:A1E6 (talk • contribs)

    And this rises to the level of ANI because..? Praxidicae (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Praxidicae, probably because we have at least two LTAs active in this area: Sairg and Qwertywander. Guy (help!) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    This rises to level of ANI because nobody is allowed to add ( reliable sourced ) anything by that user. If somebody will try to add something then that user revert and involve in edit warring. All the new users have to permission to from him. Sorry, I'm weak in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:e87:3825:6c43:b55d:21b4:604b (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    JzG Please ignore these LTAs. Either you're not aware about reality or you trust someone who easily cheat you. God bless you. 2409:4065:18A:9A32:C407:1819:CD38:A08 (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Shayantani Twisha big-time spammer

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
    BLOCKED INDEFINITELY
    For spam only account by Deepfriedokra (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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


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

    1. They hijacked the Mir Mohammed Helal Uddin and replaced it with Shayantani Twisha spam.
    2. They moved the Mir Mohammed Helal Uddin page to Shayantani Twisha.
    3. They then replaced the Shahan page with the Shayantani Twisha material.
    4. They then created a new Shayantani page.
    5. They also created Shayantanii Twisha.
    6. They created [Shayantanii Twisha]] (twice, in fact, as it was subsequently draftified and moved back into mainspace).
    7. They have also created the User:Shayantani Twisha user account previously.
    In fact, their entire contribution history—excluding the first eight—have been to insert spam regarding you-know-who into every project space they could access.
    The question for your consideration: Here...or not? ——Serial # 11:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I'd have just reported them as a SOA at AIV. Ain't nobody got time for vanity crap. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    True dat  :) still, belt and braces. Of course, you should be able to deal with 'em yourself by now :p ;) ——Serial # 11:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Indeed. Nuking their page creations will be a job for your relief :) ——Serial # 11:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Recent changes patrolling by BeamAlexander25

    Latest comment: 4 years ago23 comments12 people in discussion
    We are going to try BA's self-solution for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    BeamAlexander25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in Recent Changes patrolling, but is unfortunately making regular mistakes which are likely putting new/IP users off editing (two examples from today: [20] & [21]). They've been told by several users on their Talk page that they need to slow down and make sure edits they report as vandalism actually are disruptive to the project, rather than good faith edits which are perhaps just missing sourcing, but they continue to do this regardless (and have actively said today[22] that they'll continue to do so, which was the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of bringing the issue up here). I suspect they're young and/or have English as a second language, but at this point, where they've had lots of feedback about their disruptive patrolling behaviour and continue to do it, it's probably worth bringing up for discussion here for wider community review. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I happened to see the discussion on BA25's page, and told him I'll block him if he keeps reverting in the same manner. Not sure he understood, as he merely replied by asking why I have declined his rollback request. I'm afraid this is a complete CIR case, possibly because of language difficulties. Signing off for the night now. He may actually need a CIR block before I wake up. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC).Reply
    I wrote mostly everything I have to say on this matter at their talk page, but I'll summarize it here for everyone. I was watching recent changes myself earlier today, and found that BeamAlexander25 reverted the edits of 109.87.48.66 at European School (history). 109.87.48.66 removed a substantial amount of content without an edit summary, prompting a revert by BeamAlexander25 (starting with [23], but 109.87.48.66 later clarified [24][25] that it was part of splitting content into a new article on both the article's talk page and their user talk page. Despite my attempt to clear this misunderstanding, and that this is obviously not vandalism (also note that 109.87.48.66 has been previously working on the article), BeamAlexander25 both ignored my response on 109.87.48.66's talk page [26] and my edit summary (I reinstated their edits since their purpose and good faith was unambiguous) [27], and reverted my edit as if it were vandalism and left a template warning on my talk page [28][29]. Though they self-reverted on the article a minute later (apparently realizing this mistake), they did not respond to a personal note I subsequently left on their talk page [30] explaining exactly this misunderstanding. I did what I could to explain that these edits were not vandalism, other users raised similar concerns (hence this ANI discussion), and offered to discuss the matter with them, but like the attempts of previous users, was met with failure. Luckily this IP was not scared away, but not before they were reported at AIV [31] before reaching a level 4 warning for edits that were never vandalism to begin with.
    My bigger concern is that BeamAlexander25 has not been responsive to messages on their talk page, and continues the same questionable behavior thereafter. Hasty reverting (that is, not examining edits closely and thus incorrectly classifying them), while also a problem, is not uncommon for newer editors, but one should not dabble into recent changes patrol if they are unable or unwilling to communicate effectively with users (this also means not templating regulars) whose edits they revert or users who highlight mistakes. It's possible to learn the ins and outs of recent changes patrol over time, but not without open and effective communication. ComplexRational (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Given their apparently poor English, I'm not sure they should convinced they should not be doing Recent Changes patrolling at all. (But I'm off to bed now, and I'll look back here tomorrow.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • This looks like a bad case of the law of the instrument. BA has WP:Twinkle & WP:RedWarn which can be used even without a firm mastery of English, and without revealing that deficiency. So long as BA has these tools enabled and uses them without a comprehension of what they're doing or why, they're a WP:CIR-on-steroids. Cabayi (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • WP:Communication is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I not happened again this incident, i am reading every policies in wikipedia, i promise that i could patroll carefully and i follow WP:CIR, WP:COMMUNICATE and more, but some reverts are being mistake. -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 16:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • WP:CIR is always a one that makes me feel bad, although probably a necessary evil sometimes. I think there are good intentions here, but likely a lack of knowledge and policy, combined with language barriers, may cause problems, despite their best intentions and statement above. My view is that blocks/bans shouldn't be punitive, and although they may be necessary, if we can avoid them and still resolve the issue I think it'd be a nice outcome. I think perhaps if BeamAlexander25 is willing to stick to obvious vandalism only (unexplained blanking of large sections, addition of derogatory content, and absolute nonsense) it's an area where there'd be less room to make mistakes and is a suitable resolution in the interim. In other words, the suggestion to take it slow may be helpful. I think the reason for his lack of response to some comments is not necessarily poor behaviour, but perhaps poor understanding (due to language barriers) of what was being said, though this doesn't change the fact that WP:communication is required. Failing that, I'd say a ban from anti-vandalism patrolling may be applicable, in case they wish to contribute in other areas. I don't think a site block should be contemplated unless such a ban wasn't followed. Finally, given BeamAlexander25 states on their profile that they are from Luzon, https://tl.wikipedia.org may be of interest to them as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I broadly very much agree with this ProcrastinatingReader, though at this stage (bearing in mind a few have raised concerns on their Talk page about their patrolling previously with seemingly little impact) I'd personally suggest a ban on the use of semi-automated reversion tools such as Twinkle and Redwarn at a minimum (and I could see the logic behind those who'd prefer a total ban on anti-vandalism patrolling, be it semi-automated or otherwise). OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    OcarinaOfTime, admittedly my judgement is somewhat weak when it comes to CIR. I find it difficult to support excluding someone (acting in good faith) from the community or from the area that they like, sometimes even if I know in my gut that this will happen again.
    Nevertheless, I see your view and the need for a ban at this stage, as this is going to turn away new editors. Anti-vandalism is clearly something that they're passionate about, though, so perhaps an acceptable option may be that limited anti-vandalism work / usage of tools is allowed should they join WP:CVUA and find a suitable trainer, and the ban ends should they graduate. I think that's a way for them to learn more about anti-vandalism and related policies, and hopefully in the future they can return to the area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    May I say thank you for a careful, measured response, but a response, after all, which is needed. Having been a victim of overeager editors who have few or any contributions and give the appearance to be in Wikipedia merely for the thrill of deleting, I know too well how something like that hurts, especially the noob. I'm glad y'all following up, while not getting all bunched up. Thank you! YamaPlos talk 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Personally I'd support a topic-ban from recent changes and or from Twinkle and Redwarn too given the language issues here, Whilst everyone makes mistakes given the user's mother tongue isn't English I fear this would happen again IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 16:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Yet again we see a brand new editor using semi-automated tools badly. Is there no way to stop this happening? We control user rights such as rollback, but seem to allow anyone to use more powerful tools. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      We do stop use of powerful and fast-paced tools, such as Huggle, by requiring rollback perms. RedWarn is like Twinkle, from my understanding, so it isn't particularly more fast paced or in need of rollback perms. There's definitely a big barrier to the level of mayhem possible between Huggle and RedWarn. Requiring someone to apply for rollback to use any sort of anti-vandalism tool, even if not advanced, is problematic, because this just results in either less anti-vandalism patrollers, or more inexperienced users gaining access to the actual powerful tools. Perhaps the developer of RedWarn could implement a RW block-list, though, and similar for Twinkle, but that's probably a slightly tangential discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      You can do just as much damage, at the same speed, with the normal undo button. Twinkle and RedWarn help with warning users, but for just reverting the undo button is pretty fast.--Chuka Chief (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I will enroll Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy to improve my anti-vandalism counter and when i graduated my session, i will use recent changes, twinkle and redwarn again -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 17:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Update, i am going to bed now - BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I would strongly suggest you voluntarily withdraw from reviewing or any other semi-admin type tasks. Right now, your grasp of the English language isn't bad, but it isn't sufficient to do these things. I'm afraid you will end up getting topic banned if you continue using automated tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I released my statement in my userpage, please visit to BA25's Userpage, thanks -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 03:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Ok, and I feel compelled to remind you that "vandalism", as defined by policy, is ONLY those edits which are are designed to damage the encyclopedia and it's accuracy. Well intentioned but wrong edits, sloppy edits, unsourced but plausible edits, none of that is "vandalism". Calling those unhelpful but well intentioned edits "vandalism" is itself disruptive. If you aren't 100% sure about an edit, it is better to do nothing. You've been warned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Thank you, @Dennis Brown:, this sounds like a strategy that might keep BeamAlexander25 active, if he wants to, but avoid overstepping! YamaPlos talk 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      I'd agree with this, and in addition it looks like they've uninstalled Redwarn and haven't done any anti-vandalism edits since this ANI section was created, so I'm personally happy this is resolved for now without needing any formal administrator intervention, so long as they don't start again until/unless they graduate from WP:CVUA. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    disruptive editing from Single Purpose Editor: Julie Passas

    Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) Indefinite partial block. El C is willing to consider an unblock if the user can better explain herself and stop editing warring. Darkknight2149 08:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Julie Passas (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account and her only edits are continually removing content from Nick Adams (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). She has been blocked twice (once for edit warring, another for sockpuppetry). She has received 2 warnings today [32]. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Repeated unsourced edits

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

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

    Despite multiple warnings, reversion edit summaries (examples 1, 2 & 3) as well as personal pleas, Jeremykuhl refuses to acknowledge these issues on their talk page nor have they made any attempt at verifying their edits. Here, here and here are some examples of their most recent unsourced edits and I can happily provide more if needed. I'd greatly appreciate some admin intervention please. Robvanvee 08:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Just a bump in the hope that an admin takes a look. Robvanvee 13:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    They've not responded or edited since before you ANI noticed them. I'm watching their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you Deepfriedokra. Quite right, other than to remove my personal request from their talk page asking kindly for them to source their edits. I chose not to remove any of their unsourced additions until an admin had taken a look at the case so we shall see if they intentionally reinstate their unreferenced edits again. Thanks again! Robvanvee 07:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Robvanvee: We equate removal with acknowledgement, though it may only indicate annoyed incomprehension. I think they have been sufficiently warned. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed. Many thanks again Deepfriedokra! Robvanvee 08:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Pointless, disruptive editing in math articles

    Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

    Was blocked by user EdJohnston.

    Was again reported at AIV for edit warring after block expiration. Declined by user Ad Orientem: [33]

    Was reported at AIV again for disruptive editing, edit warring, as another instance of 176.88.99.156. User Ad Orientem declined block but a page was protected: [34]

    Now IP continues to impose their view on mathematics formatting and ignores all undo's by various users Deacon Vorbis, D.Lazard, Joel B. Lewis, myself.

    Both IP's noticed on their talk pages. - DVdm (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I partially blocked the IP for a week so they are unable to edit articles. I left a message at their talk asking them to discuss the proposed changes on article talk. Let me know if further problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Johnuniq: thanks, though it looks like you only did one of the two IP addresses, and in particular not the one they were using this morning? --JBL (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, I should have changed the order—most recent first. User Johnuniq or someone else, can you please verify? Thx. - DVdm (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    They're still at it, from the .248 address. --JBL (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Fwiw, also reported now again at AIV: [35]. - DVdm (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The person behind these IPs seems likely to continue indefinitely.There are at least six different single IPs that show this pattern of edits. I think a 2-month block of Special:Contributions/176.88.96.0/22 will do the job, and there is little collateral, so I'm going ahead with that. Other admins can modify if they think there is a better way. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Let's hope that does the job. Thanks, EdJohnston. - DVdm (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, brain failure re the wrong IP. I intended to partially block the IP that edited most recently. Thanks to admins who fixed. If it resurfaces, I would be happy to look. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Edit war about Lawrence Kasdan

    Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
    Closing for now, nothing really to do. If edit warring continues, I recommend use of the block tool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    (Original section title was: "Comprehensive additions to the Lawrence Kasdan article keep being undone, resulting in an undesired edit war")

    I added a substantial amount of new material to the article for Lawrence Kasdan in February 2020 (all of it meticulously sourced), and one particular user, Revan646, has now three times deleted all of my work to revert back to the old (and very sparse) version of the article. The only reason given was that I "ruined it" by making it too long and "filling this page up with unnecessary information." (The user has also insulted me personally, calling me "stupid" and "a troll.") I've communicated with Revan646 directly on their Talk page (politely), but we appear to be at a standstill. The back and forth prompted another user, Timaaa, to warn both of us about the consequences of engaging in an edit war, which I certainly have no desire to do. I posted this dispute to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and user Xavexgoem closed it—advising me to instead post it here, since "Conduct issues abound." I would like to see this dispute resolved peacefully, and see the hours of hard work to improve Kasdan's article re-implemented while adhering to all of Wikipedia's standards and protocols. Tgreiving (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Here are the diffs wrt to this dispute (note edit summaries): [36][37][38][39]. Also see [40]; it would be their 8th contrib. Content DR usually has conduct issues associated with it, but I don't think my rejecting this case was unreasonable. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Tgreiving, I notice that you and Reyan656 both only have a handful of edits, as in 17 and 25 when I looked. I'm lost as to how you can get in an edit war when you have less than 10 total edits to mainspace between the both of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I would also have closed that thread at DRN as primarily conduct. In some cases the length of the insult in the edit summary was as long as the disputed content. I don't like Uncivil Edit Summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I may be misunderstanding, but my contribution (edits) to the article amounted to nearly 10,000 words of new content. Revan646 deleted the entirety of it out of hand for no reason other than that it was now "too long." It's true I haven't contributed much to Wikipedia outside of this article, but I'm not sure why that would be relevant in this dispute. Tgreiving (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    In my opinion, User:Tgreiving and User:Revan646 are both edit warring. Each of them is risking a block if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    How would I get a consensus? I feel stuck in a stalemate with a user who fails to engage in a meaningful or substantive way. My contributions to the article have all been additive and constructive, and the "war" has simply been the other user deleting everything I added without explanation. Tgreiving (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The general way to go about getting a consensus is to have a discussion on the talk page. Right now, there are three comments from two editors about your edit. Reyan656 said the career section was too long (referring, I believe to your additions) and was going to restore it to what it was, and the other editor commente) that the longer version (your version) was better. On the de facto side, in the edit history of the article, you have two editors removing your edit (Reyan646 and one other) and you have Calton restoring it. Although I restored part of the article that you had removed -- the filmography -- I also accepted your edit as an improvement.
    Right now that puts things even-steven, with no consensus one way or the other, so go to the talk page and make an argument as to why you believe your edits improve the article, and see what kind of response you get to that. "Too long" is not a very valid reason to delete an entire edit, so Reyan646 will need to come up with a better argument to counter yours. Who knows, you may agree that your addition is fundamentally an improvement, but needs to be slimmed down a little. You'll never know until you start the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Incidentally, this is minor edit warring arising from a content dispute and should probably be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    প্রসেনজিৎ পাল

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

    প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Over at Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar there was a bit of edit warring over including labels in the lede and info box (to be precise "philosopher", " composer", and "author").

    The problem is the user is insisting they are right, and has resorted to some shabby sources (some of which do not even seem to back up the text). In addition (not a violation of policy to be sure) their English is not that good, and I think they may be saying things that do not mean what they think they mean (or they do mean it and are making some very odd whataboutsm arguments). They also seem to be (almost) an SPA and not here (as well as not listening (or maybe they just do not understand what is being said).Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Whatever this editor may be doing at Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar this is certainly not an SPA or someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia. The editor started many articles on the works of Rabindranath Tagore, one of the world's foremost literary figures, which were shamefully nominated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I stand corrected there, but it has taken up a huge amount of his time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Amen, Phil Bridger. Anyway, I see that jps has volunteered a third opinion, so let's follow their lead. This incident may have been reported prematurely (WP:3O always an option). Someone who has earned good will elsewhere should be entitled to at least that, even if they're not entirely coherent (unless that incoherence forms a pattern leading to an intractable problem). El_C 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In the last few days, perhaps. But over the course of their history they've changed focus many times, and spent some days on a given article. This article hasn't really taken up so much of his time in comparison. Certainly not a SPA, and certainly looks like they are here to build an encyclopedia. I think this is a content dispute and that the dispute resolution process should be followed first. They are responsive and engaging in talk with you. Some of their arguments, in relation to policy, may not be great but that's something that can be improved. I think there's half a dozen other things that should be done about this before bringing it to ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    JPS has been there only a few hours less then me, both brought there by a notice board notice (so we are both third eyes, this is the result of someone else trying the 3O route). But close this by all means.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    IP holding a personal grudge

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    This IP seems to have a grudge against another IP known as 76.65.28.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and keeps changing their edits with the reason being that their grammar is poor. I do not know if these IPs know each other in real life, but it seems odd for a IP to target the edits of a specific IP. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I definitely don't know him in real life. What an absurd accusation; if anything, I would suspect you seem to have some sort of grudge against me. I have already said the reasoning behind my edits many, many times, and you've ignored me each time. The reason I am editing his edits are because they are disruptive. Among the things he does: changes the birthdays of living people to incorrect birthdays, change the episode counts of television shows to incorrect episode counts, switches the names of male and female characters in plot summaries, etc. I don't have time to sift through any more of his edits though, so hopefully a moderator of Wikipedia or somebody else can help revert all the other edits he made to birthdays of living people. 219.111.143.51 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Uninvolved intervention required at white genocide conspiracy theory

    Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) Indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Darkknight2149 08:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Requesting an outside admin to swiftly block the user above. They hijacked an edit request on this talk page to rant about, well, I'll let you guess. I rolled up their insistence that the white race really is dying out, in response to which they've spent the last 14 hours plastering the page with walls of text about the real meaning of the swastika and how we don't talk about how blue eyes are going extinct (????) and are now resorting to blanking the page, tinkering with the top-of-page FAQ and DS templates, and editing other users' comments. They need to be given something else to do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    (Redacted) Glahera476 20:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    I read about four sentences of Glahera476's comments before getting a headache. Blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. I suspect we have a thrilling unblock request to look forward to. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I've redacted the blocked user's comment's above because I am unwilling to give a platform to this kind of white supremacist crap - especially right now. The comments are available to read here, if you are so inclined. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 20:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Are administrators using discretion appropriately around the Killing of George Floyd?

    Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments12 people in discussion
    I'm going to assume Geo Swan gets the point, and just close this. No need to summarize what should be obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    I am concerned some administrators may be using discretion inappropriately around the Killing of George Floyd, and the constellation of related articles.

    In particular there is an individual associated with one of the officers who played a role in Floyd's killing whose lawyer issued a press release stating the individual related to the officer was going to change their name because they had received death threats. There are half a dozen administrators who are revdel'ing, blocking, and issuing block warnings to prevent both wikipedia article space, and our other namespaces, from providing any hint to that individual's name.

    I don't want this section of WPANI to be revdel'd, so I won't name the individual, or provide diffs to discussions that give hints to their identity.

    Maybe it seemed obvivous to those administrators who claimed authority under WP:BLP to suppress material that mentions this individual, that they qualify for WP:BLPNAME. In doing so they have described the individual as non-notable. But, in fact, this individual does not meet the criteria for BLP1E, having RS coverage of their own, in 2018. Nor do they measure up to the BLPNAME criteria that states it applies to individuals whose names were not already "widely disseminated".

    When I did a google search on this individual's name in early June I got 269,000 hits. I suggest anyone with this level of web search results has a "widely disseminated" name.

    I fully support applying BLPNAME to this individual's NEW NAME. The individual's NEW NAME would meet the not "widely disseminated" criteria of BLPNAME. The OLD NAME, on the other hand, has been so widely dessiminated that applying BLPNAME protection to it is completely pointless.

    I asked administrator David Eppstein to explain an instance where he revdel'd a comment I left on an article's talk page. Instead of answering he characterized my question as an instance of "spamming". The closest he got to an explanation was a comment that said "revdelled, although at least it only gave [the old] name."

    Yeah, but does the very widely disseminated old name meet the criteria for BLPNAME protection? I think only the barely disseminated new name merits protection. And I am not sure anyone could justify excising or revdeling an edit that referenced an RS article, merely because the RS mentioned the new name, if the new name was not included in article space.

    I started working on a draft of an article on the second most experienced officer who played a role in Floyd's death, User:Geo Swan/Tou Thao. That draft does not mention the individual who is changing their name. But some of the references that draft article would use do contain a single sentence with a passing mention to that individual's old name name. So I have the references saved, elsewhere.

    I do not think I should have to exercise this kind of caution over using perfectly respectable references, because the RS mentions a name an administrator thinks is subject to BLPNAME protection.

    I do my best to comply with all our project's explicit policies and guidelines. I think I do a pretty good job. I will do my best to comply with a consensus that followed a real discussion, that reaches a conclusion that is an interpretation of a wrinkle not explicitly stated in a policy or guideline.

    But I don't like being expected to comply with vague warnings that seem to be based on administrator's gut feelings, when they can't or won't back that gut feeling up with a link to a meaningful discussion.

    I'd like the opinions of contributors over:

    1. When, if ever, should BLPNAME be applied to widely disseminated names?
    2. Should BLPNAME be applied to very widely disseminated names, merely because the individual in question starts the legal process of changing their name?
    3. In this particular case, shouldn't BLPNAME protection be reserved for the barely disseminated NEW NAME?
    4. Can RS be used that contain passing mentions to a name we decided to protect as per BLPNAME, if we do not include that name in article space?
    5. Should I restore the references to User:Geo Swan/Tou Thao, even if they may contain a passing mention of a name that might be subject to BLPNAME protection?
    6. Should another adminstrator revert all the revdel's that inappropriately protected a name that wasn't really eligible for BLPNAME protection?

    Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    P.S. There have been at least half a dozen other administrators whose use of authority on articles and talk pages related to the killing struck me as based on gut feelings, not policy, which I didn't mention here, to keep this from growing any longer. Geo Swan (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    See earlier closed discussion of the same topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039 § Redirect links to <redacted>, which Geo Swan knows about because Geo Swan participated, and which was in agreement that removal of this information is appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • David Eppstein, the record does show you and I both weighed in, in a discussion, on June 14th. You may not believe me, but I did not remember this discussion, when I pinged you on June 21st. If I remembered it, I would have taken it into account in my initial comment here.

      I did a couple of searches of the WPANI archives, prior to leaving this comment, and that section did not come up, due to the redaction.

      Note: the June 14th discussion does not clarify whether you plan to continue to revdel edits where good faith contributors use RS when the RS contains a passing mention of someone you think merits protection. Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • Generally speaking, if there's a question of whether or not the inclusion of personal information may lead to harm, and no firm consensus to include it anyway, then it is redactable. See WP:DONOHARM for guidance. That someone would argue otherwise (that we should publish everything and wait for it to be a problem) is a good indication that they should not edit BLPs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • As I recall, this content had been challenged and removed, requiring consensus to add back. As there were concerns about potential exposure to real life problems of someone not the subject of the article, revdeling seemed the best course. If consensus emerges to add it back then I will be happy to unrevdel. Or any other admin, as always, is free to revert my actions if they believe I've erred. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Please see the relevant discussion on my talk page at Special:permalink/963962842#Teachable moments. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Why are we creating articles on the officers involved which is pretty much against BLPCRIME? I don't care that they are getting additional scrutiny but these are not people that yet have the dozens of analyses of someone like Lee Harvey Oswald or Charles Mason in the annuls of history. This is why when it comes to these events the fewer articles on the actual crime (people involved) the better to avoid issues like if we have to worry about BLPNAME as much like this in the first place. As to that David Eppstein and others have done, I'm in full agreement to avoid naming any names when there have been known death threats made to these people as reported in RSes. Yes, we can't stop any reader from figuring it out themselves, but we should not be that vector for people to learn that bit of information. --Masem (t) 23:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • If you're using a source for an a different matter, and it's a reliable source, and it happens to mention in the article's text the name of the individual, I don't think that's an issue, especially if it can't be avoided. As for including the name of the individual, looking at David Eppstein's link which has more information about this individual, and without further digging, I can hardly imagine an encyclopaedic purpose for inclusion of her name, but I can think of multiple for exclusion of her name. Wikipedia has greater responsibilities to BLPs than just trying to lawyer around specific wordings of policy pages (which, by the way, alone don't even necessarily reflect the intentions and consensus behind said policy). Unless there's an encyclopaedic purpose for inclusion I don't see why it should be included, especially if the individual has been receiving death threats due to their prior relationship with an involved officer. Even if such information is widely available, Wikipedia doesn't need to participate in, or aid in, encouraging that kind of conduct without good reason for content inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • This complaint has no merit and approaches being disruptive. Part of GeoSwan’s argument relates to content, which does not get debated or decided at this board. As for his complaint against administrators and the actions they are taking, they are not acting arbitrarily or based on their own “gut feelings”; they are enforcing the result of an earlier discussion on this board and the consensus reached at the article's talk page. Which GeoSwan knows perfectly well, because as David Eppstein points out, GeoSwan took part in the ANI discussion, where he argued to include information about her even if we don’t name her. That viewpoint did not carry the day; as per that discussion we merely say that the officer’s wife has filed for divorce. There was also a talk page discussion a few weeks ago, see Talk:Derek Chauvin/Archive 1#Privacy issue, where GeoSwan again argued for inclusion of the name, again failed to win consensus, and was advised to drop it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Another more interesting question would be Should editors who use Wikipedia to right great wrongs by naming and shaming individual cogs in the wheel be indeffed?. Put me in the yes camp. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Just last week in the thread DFO linked above on his talk page [41], EEng pointed out to Geo Swan that the "not widely disseminated" proviso of WP:BLPNAME reads in full "has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". Despite acknowledging in the OP that the person change[d] their name because they had received death threats, i.e. "intentionally concealed", Geo Swan talks about the "widely disseminated" language but does not address at all the "intentionally concealed" language. To me, that's WP:IDHT and thus disruptive. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Plus, as I also pointed out back then, the new name may be one of this person's prior names, so noising the prior names about is damaging too. EEng 00:38, June 30, 2020
    • Jesus fuck, this again? I said all I need to say at Special:permalink/963962842#Teachable moments (that's a repeat of a link given by Deepfriedokra earlier in this thread). Geo Swan, at long last what's wrong with you? Stop wasting everyone's time with your preoccupation with this or you're going to end up like Neelix. EEng 00:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • The person in question is trying to conceal their identity and their lawyers report that they and their family have been subjected to harassment and death threats. In my opinion, Geo Swan should receive an indefinite topic ban on any content relating to living people or recently deceased people if Geo Swan fails to drop the stick and continues to flog this hobby horse of theirs. In the spirit of full disclosure, I gave Geo Swan a somewhat narrower warning about this issue on June 16. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing of Empire AS

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Empire AS has been frequently violating WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO on articles such as Atif Aslam, Pachtaoge and probably others.

    Empire AS has competence issues for starters. He had enough warnings about copyvio[42][43][44] but he hasn't learned a thing. Having made 4 reverts in 24 hours (see WP:3RR) on Pachtaoge, he first edit warred to restore a blatant WP:LINKVIO[45][46][47] and now he is resorting to youtube and twitter trends for sourcing his WP:RGW-based statements.[48] शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


    I added content to Atif Aslam, but you removed that due to unsourced. I reverted your edit and added references to that section. Similarly, Pachtaoge had a reliable source. Someone removed that and I reverted that edit. But again, you reverted my edit. I didn't want any edit-war. Therefore, I didn't revert your edit and added true informations again with reliable sources. But you reverted that again and even not saw the references. Everytime, you reverted my edits containing right informations from reliable citations. You have also been involved in edit-wars.[49] You have been warned from removing major content of articles.[50]. You have made 3 reverts on Pachtaoge in just 15 hours.[51][52][53]. You also made 2 reverts in Atif Aslam[54][55][56] and removed the entire portion of "Singing style, impact and recognition" from Atif Aslam that included reliable sources, which reveals that you don't use neutral point of view.[57] Same as, you removed a major content from Sonu Nigam.[58] Empire AS (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Not Following Policy with Results Box - War of 1812 article

    Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
    This is not an intractable incident. Please discuss on the article talk page or the respective policy page. Thank you. El_C 12:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    A recent discussion and vote, proposed by Peacemaker67 and supported by myself and Ykraps was held to change the Results box of the War_of_1812. Because of the nature of the War of 1812, the results box had a list of various events and outcomes in it. The policy on the results box is clear, it says that you either have a statement like "American Victory" "British Victory" or "inconclusive". Otherwise, if there is disagreement, you link to the section in the article where the reader can read the detail, as opposed to including a list of items in the results box. That policy is here.

    • The wording of the policy is
    • "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note *can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The results box was changed to reflect the policy and to remove the list of statements and to link to the relevant section. It has now been reverted a number of times by User:Davide King, and once again, the results box includes a number of items, against suggested wikipedia policy. I've stopped reverting it not, in order to avoid an edit war. Could an admin please look at the page, and confirm this is policy? Thank you! Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    It isn't "policy", it is notes on the use of a template, and even within Milhist there are differences of opinion and ongoing discussion about the wording. The real issue here is failing to respect consensus and/or failing to use DR. This could be easily resolved with a neutrally-worded RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    My issue is that this is not consensus and that we should wait for this. Furthermore, I find it weird we are discussing this when the consensus is clear and thus Inconclusive should be the Result as that satisfies both the template's parameter policy and the consensus of historians (i.e. draw/stalemate). You want to push the view that there is a dispute among historians or no consensus when there indeed is consensus; and you want to give undue and unwarranted weight to the minority view that the result was anything other than a draw/stalemate.--Davide King (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Firstly, if you read the article, there are two viewpoints there. Not one. There is the majority viewpoint (mostly US Historians) that the war was a draw. There is the minority viewpoint (mostly Canadian and British historians) that the war was a win for Canada. If the article came to the conclusion it was a draw then the results box should reflect that. It doesn't. It says that there are different views on it. The results box can't just take one side, and ignore the other. That's why the parameter policy should be used and linked to the section. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Secondly, why wasn't peacemaker's proposal consensus? We discussed it for a month. Three of us agree, and there was one dissent. No one else commented. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    That is because there was a discussion about whether there even was a national bias in the first place and a request for comments is all Not support, so what are you even talking about? The whole thing you are basing it on for your proposal does not even have consensus in the first place! You were the only one to support that! Again, just because at the same no one else replied yet, it does not mean a mere 3–1 (which would be 3–2 with me) equals consensus, especially when it was not even "advertised" to get more users' participation.--Davide King (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Wow, it’s a good thing this article has an infobox! —JBL (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Seriously, I can name you 22 US historians that say it was a draw. There's only three US authors that say it was a win for Canada. What is that? Coincidence?. Even look at the Wikipedia editors on here. The US editors argue for the draw theory, and the Canadians and non Americans tend to support the Canadian win theory. Of course there are different views, based on where you come from. Also,how can you justify excluding one viewpoint from the article, just because a lesser amount of people support it? Its still a valid viewpoint, supported by respected Historians. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    For the watchlist

    Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

    Per this report, Stefan Molyneux, Richard B. Spencer and David Duke have been banned from YouTube, and that typically leads to a flurry of non-neutral edits to a BLP. Guy (help!) 09:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I know this is WP:NOTFORUM, but I can't restrain myself. I must say, it's about time. Twitter, you're on notice when even YouTube bans someone. Get your act together. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    All those articles are already sprotected (the first two by yours truly), so there's that. But I am prepared to temporarily upgrade to ECP, if the need arises. El_C 12:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    El C, yup. And I just sprotected the talk page of Stefan Molyneux for a couple of days due to egregious trolling. Guy (help!) 20:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, sorry, I thought I had already indef sprotected Stefan Molyneux like I did with Richard B. Spencer. I suppose I can't invoke AP2 with him, though — his Canadian-ness compels me! El_C 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    On closer look, it is under AP2 — Canadian-ness notwithstanding. I doubt that would fly if he was British, though. El_C 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    That is not Canadian-ness, I assure you, this wretched soul is Irish and precisely the American Internet's problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    El C, he's appeared on InfoWars and AmRen, so this is in scope I think. Guy (help!) 09:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Americanada, then! El_C 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Close enough! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    El C, indeed - certainly within the realm of WP:BROADLY. Guy (help!) 10:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    WP:WOMANLY would be a less sexist way to put it. EEng 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    WP:SYNTH at River Vale, New Jersey

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    A series of edits to the article for River Vale, New Jersey by User:201blm make a series of claims about the township's mayor. Previous versions were missing sources, but even with sources, the edits constitute clear violation of WP:SYNTH policy as an effort to claim that mayor Glen Jasionowski should have issued a statement about Black Lives Matter. The sourcing is predicated on the facts that 1) the community is largely white, 2) that he has taken a stance on a mascot issue at the local high school; and 3) that there were racist incidents at the high school several years ago, which are meant to show that the mayor should have made a statement about Black Lives Matter, but has not. All of these things may well be (and are) true and they all may have sources, but as I see it, the conclusion does not follow from the predicates and this makes all of this a rather blatant WP:SYNTH violation. See this edit, this second reinsertion and the latest version with some minor tweaks. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    This is a content dispute, but I removed it. Someone not doing something isn't encyclopaedic. Plus the stuff about the schools should be on the school's article, of which there is one. Lastly it fails WP:LEAD. Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Looks like pretty clear WP:SYNTH to me. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Marsha P Johnson vandalism

    Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    Marsha P. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Escalating since this page is featured in a Google doodle today. Marsha P Johnson’s page is being repeatedly vandalised with NSFL images. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/965314802 Already semi protected. Sleeper vandal blocked. Do we want ECP? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Deepfriedokra, where's the fun in that? I love a game of whack-a-mole! Imagine, though, blowing an autoconfirmed sleeper on something that lame. Guy (help!) 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Two blown and now ECP by General Notability. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It set a personal best by no fewer than four individuals contacting me in RL to ask for its removal, and I still didn't get there in time Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Abuse by IPs

    Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

    A group of similar IPs has posted messages in talk-pages of articles in which I have contributed or discussed (possible WP:HOUNDING), which included derogatory content and private information about me. Part of the messages have therefore been oversighted.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Stop lying nothing is written derogatory and private information. Just read it. Why are you lying to the administrators? They should ban you for lying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.73.127 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @WEBDuB: There are oversighted revisions, though there's no way now to tell why they were oversighted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Tezwoo (talk · contribs) has also made edits at Talk:Croatia that have been oversighted. Any chance he could be operating the IPs? User:GeneralNotability did the block of Tezwoo and they might have some advice on this situation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    EdJohnston, I've actually unblocked Tezwoo per discussion with them - further investigation gave reasonable doubt about whether or not that IP was actually theirs. I can't see the oversighted material so no comment on what they may or may not have done. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The edits are oversighted due to some internal error because all those edits seem visible on the talk pages, on Talk:Croatia and Talk:Novak Djokovic [59], where I first noticed that. I would assume it's because the IP's did not sign their posts which created some strange bug after users tried to sign them. Tezwoo (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Tezwoo has nothing to do with it, I'm sure that he is certainly not connected with the disturbing behavior of these IPs. I requested oversight because of derogatory content and private information about me. I have e-mails as proof of those requests and the oversight team's approval. This behavior continued after that, which can be seen in this section as well.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Well, there were stranger accusations recently. Regarding the oversight, then there might have been an error during that action because all of the edits are still there on the talk page [60], even though the diffs can't be checked. Even a bot's edit was oversighted. Tezwoo (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Competence

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) IP blocked for 24 hours by Spencer. Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    190.86.109.35 doesn't understand the material they're editing (changing a moderate earthquake to a very large earthquake). Materialscientist attempted to block this person several weeks ago, but I was blocked inadvertently for a month. Dawnseeker2000 18:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Spshu undoing my edits

    Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
    107.77.189.0/24 range blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    So Spshu has been reverting my edits on WLAJ, WILX-TV and WLNS-TV without explaining everything; they are disruptive, and even edit warred on other articles. Basically they should be blocked indefinitely for being not here to clear an encyclopedia. 107.77.189.39 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I would say the reversions generally did have justifications provided (where an identical reversion occurs to a prior one, and there was an initial reason provided, it can usually be assumed to have the same explanation). Their participation on WLAJ (and yours) appears to be a slow-speed edit war. In all three cases both of you should have taken it to the Talk Page to hash things out. They're inactive on WILX-TV in most of a month. I don't find either editors' behaviour formally sanctionable from the above but would normally suggest a trout to both (I see that has caused issue on Spshu's TP, however). Instead please both consider this a requirement to discuss each instance rather than recommence a slow-speed insert/revert. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I find it curious that the reporting IP had knowledge of conversations on the talk page of an indefinitely-blocked user (diff). A boomerang may be more useful here than a trout. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • This feels a little bit like blocked user CentralTime301, who was active in the same areas and clashed with Spshu on more than one occasion. I tried to reach out to them back in January, to no avail. I'll be really dissapointed if they're still at this, six months on. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 19:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    CT301 is globally locked from editing. 107.77.189.39 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    IP addresses are editing user talk pages, giving false warnings, and edit warring

    IP addresses 107.77.189.13 and 107.77.189.39 has been removing "nonsense" from user talk pages that they are not allowed to edit – 107.77.189.39 even falsely warned me on my talk page for "deleting or editing legitimate comments". I also think that they may be related IPs as they share a similar editing pattern.

    107.77.189.39 was also engaged in an edit war with User:Spshu, which the IP address then reported Spshu for, as can be seen in these diffs. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Attacks and aggression

    Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
    WARNED
    I have issued a DS alert for BLP and warned Indrian that further edit-warring over deadnames will lead to a block and potentially a ban. Guy (help!) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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


    I would like to report issues with User:Indrian. I initially planned on creating this page after our Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rebecca_Heineman DRN case had finished; however, I've decided to post it now so that it doesn't appear to be retaliation in the event the DRN doesn't turn out in my favor.

    Indrian has been reverting edits regarding Rebecca Heineman's deadname for approximately six years now. While googling around, I noticed what I considered an excessive amount of deadnaming on her article, and decided to remove it. While looking at the article's history, I noticed several people had attempted to do the same over the years, with all of them quickly reverted by Indrian. Fearing an edit war, I left this message on the talk page, pinging Indrian, and attempting to explain my edit in a way they might understand. After posting, I reached out to several people in real life and online to get their thoughts, and ended up making this edit, in an attempt to avoid an "us vs. them" mentality, as advised by a fediverse user. Several hours later, Indrian left this response, and reverted my changes. This message by Indrian accuses me of censorship, and suggests Rebecca edit her page if she wishes, despite her being unable to do so because of a lack of NPOV. Additionally, Indrian references the book 1984 at the end of the response. These are running themes with this page and Indrian, as they have accused another user on the talk page of pushing personal agendas and censorship. In a somewhat blunt response to Indrian, I opened the previously-mentioned DRN, as it seemed clear to me we could not come to a resolution on our own.

    Throughout the rest of the posts on the talk page, Indrian has continued to claim I am pushing a personal agenda of censorship, and has ridiculed me for opening a DRN request, which I believe is in violation of WP:AGF. Later in the thread, I somewhat-jokingly refer to Indrian as "Mr. Ministry of Truth", calling back to their previous reference to 1984. Indrian's most recent response (as of right now) claims this is a personal attack, which I find quite ridiculous.

    I believe this behavior of aggression, accusations, ridicule, and attacks is awful, and should not be allowed on Wikipedia, especially as Indrian has been doing this for at least six years now, beginning with their response to User:Girlsimulation on Talk:Rebecca_Heineman. This is no longer about the deadnaming of Rebecca, but Indrian's behavior and aggression. I am tired, and I am frustrated. I attempted to enter this discussion with an open mind and assumption of good faith, and in return I have been bullied and attacked by someone who sees everything as a grand Orwellian conspiracy by trans people. 3nk1namshub (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Wow, what a mean-spirited personal attack! We are having a productive discussion at DRN regarding the current situation. I stand my my talk page response to User:Girlsimulation, which merely lays out policy as I interpret it. I also stand by my assertion that attempting to erase historical context is Orwellian. I see no grand conspiracy therein. I do see individual members of a community with no grand design or larger intent being overzealous in stamping out a practice that they rightly see as hateful when applied to judgement on self-identification choices but on Wikipedia is merely reporting biographical data necessary for historical context in accordance with current Wikipedia policy on alternate names and pronoun usage. To assert a privilege to erase history is, sadly, an invitation to practice an ugly form of bigotry just as insidious as trying to deny a person the right to self-identify on the gender spectrum. I have been on Wikipedia since 2004 and been involved in dozens of heated discussions on articles in that time. This is the first time I have been dragged in here. How very interesting. Bullying and attempting to silence dissent indeed! Indrian (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Again, this is not about our disagreement, but about your aggression and attacks. Please do not attempt to spin this as anything else, thank you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Oh there is really no need to spin anything. You have done perfectly fine laying out the obvious connections here without my help! Indrian (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Indrian, you acknowledge that the birth name/deadname is mentioned excessively in the article and yet you revert every effort by any editor to reduce this excessive use of that name. I see that an IP tried in January to eliminate only two of the excessive mentions, and you reverted. So, due to your zeal, the article has had an ugly problem for six years. I recommend that you back down. If you won't, perhaps we ought to consider a topic ban for you from transgender people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You're right. The January edit was actually quite appropriate and I knee-jerked it due to years of frustration putting up with far more militant attempts. I am all for going back to that version of the article. Indrian (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Indrian, I do not think that you can be trusted to exercise good judgment on that article since you haven't for six years, and are being extremely aggressive when criticized legitimately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I have returned the naming situation to the state it was in as of Janaury 2020. It appears to me that it now has a good balance between providing proper historical context and respecting the right of self-identification. Indrian (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It was still excessive so I have reduced it further. You should have waited until this discussion ended. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    There was a DRN related to the content dispute. It was closed without resolution. The ANI was about my alleged aggression, not the content. Indrian (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Indrian, do not keep trying to ram those excessive mentions back into the article without consensus. In my opinion, you are skating on thin ice. Let's hear what other editors think. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I am okay with hearing what other editors think. I think it would be a good idea, however, if I stop talking about the Ministry of Truth and you and others stop with the equally charged deadnaming accusations. Providing proper attribution for her early work is not the same thing as trying to call out a prior name in an attempt to dredge up painful memories or question the legitimacy of a self-identification choice. Indrian (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Note: This case has been closed at DRN. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Retaliatory AFD nominations

    Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments11 people in discussion

    After arguing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamie Paul that my "interpretation" of WP:NPOL is incorrect, an editor tried to retaliate against my position by pointedly nominating several completely unrelated articles that I recently created about the annual iterations of a notable film award ceremony whose articles have actually been long overdue. Obviously film awards and political candidates have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and nominating stuff for deletion solely because you disagree with the creator of it on a completely unrelated matter is at the very least a WP:POINT violation and potentially even approaches harassment, but as a directly involved party it would be obviously inappropriate for me to either close the revenge nominations or sanction the editor myself.

    The discussions in question are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8th Jutra Awards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9th Jutra Awards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Jutra Awards and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11th Jutra Awards — and both our article about the overall Prix Iris (name changed in 2016, so don't get confused by the Jutra-vs-Iris distinction) and the fact that every year's ceremony has an article on the French Wikipedia as well, plainly demonstrate their notability.

    Accordingly, I just wanted to ask if somebody could take a look at this situation, and potentially at least speedy close the revenge nominations if you consider that appropriate. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I stand by my comments and I will not recant them. Bearcat has been bludgeoning the AfD process on politician articles for years now, insisting that his interpretation of that guideline is the only correct one and that GNG is completely irrelevant, and filibustering anyone who disagrees. I apologize for the pointy nominations - that was petty and wrong. I accept the inevitable block - I recognize that I deserve it for my comments and pointy nominations. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    And I stand by everything I've said. I do not have any "personal interpretation" of NPOL that differs one iota from standing sitewide consensus about how NPOL works.
    As I've said before, every candidate in every election everywhere always gets some campaign coverage — so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it at all anymore. Politicians are one of those groups of people who are highly prone to attempting to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform to try to promote their candidacies by posting campaign brochures here — but that's not our mandate or our role, so we have an established consensus that the key to getting a politician into Wikipedia on political grounds per se normally requires holding office and not just running for it. So political candidates don't just need to show the existence of some campaign coverage to exempt themselves from NPOL, precisely because every candidate would always be NPOL-exempt if NPOL worked that way — rather, candidates need to show that they escape WP:BLP1E by having coverage in more than just that context alone, and/or a reason why their candidacy would somehow pass the ten year test for enduring significance, before they get exempted from NPOL.
    And none of this is just my own personal opinion: all of it is established Wikipedia consensus, supported and upheld by literally thousands of past AFDs on politicians, many of which I did not even participate in at all. And, in fact, I used to also disagree with the established consensus, and supported articles about unelected candidates — I came around to agreeing with the consensus only after witnessing, with my own eyes, the effects that my former position actually had on the quality and reliability of Wikipedia, because articles about unelected candidates almost always devolve into advertorialized junk.
    But regardless of whether you agree with me on a politician or not, retaliatory nominations against topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with the notability standards for politicians is simply inappropriate. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I agree that the AfDs were inappropriate - I was wrong to do that, and I've attempted to speedy close them. However, since you're insisting on relitigating NPOL here, I'm going to post the same thing I just posted in the Madison Cawthorn AfD:
    Madison Cawthorn AfD comment
    • Comment - this is the full text of the WP:NPOL guideline:
      The following are presumed to be notable:
      * Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
      * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
      Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.
    • Nowhere in here does it say that political candidates are required to meet NPOL. Nowhere in here does it say there is some extra special notability requirement above and beyond the GNG when determining whether coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Nowhere in here does it say that "sustained international" coverage is required. Nowhere in here does it say that the subject must still be of sustained public interest in 10 years.[a] And certainly nowhere does it say that the candidates must achieve Christine O'Donnell levels of coverage. NPOL is about categories of politicians presumed to be notable even if they don't meet GNG. It's not some extra hurdle that's required; it's an extra route to notability for politicians who fail GNG. If an editor repeatedly insists that their position on NPOL is the "community consensus", even when the actual text of the SNG contradicts them repeatedly, the onus is on them to prove it, not just repeat it over and over and over again.

    Notes

    1. ^ Actually, they often are to those who study American politics - that's a reason in itself. The general public doesn't care about all the tens of thousands of species of insects - many are only of interest to specialists. That doesn't mean we delete those articles.
    You don't get to just insist that your interpretation is the "correct one" when the text of the guideline flatly contradicts it. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    May I suggest that you quickly withdraw those nominations? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure of the procedure to do that, but I'll give it a try. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Just strike out your argument for deletion and leave a note saying ‘nomination withdrawn’. Beaten to it. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thank goodness that we have editors like Bearcat who help defend our longstanding consensus that unelected political candidates who have never held high office are rarely notable. This editor has done outstanding work helping keep campaign brochures masquerading as encyclopedia articles off of Wikipedia. Of course, if the candidate was previously a general or a professional athlete or a movie star, they are notable for those reasons. But the vast majority of local lawyers or business people running for Congress or Parliament are not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, because their coverage is routine, local, run of the mill, and predictable . Such candidates should be described briefly and neutrally in an article about the election campaign, with all candidates given comparable coverage. But the POV pushers and SPAs who try to write these articles do not want neutral coverage. They see a Wikipedia article focused on their candidate to be just another component of their campaign's social media portfolio. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    User:Cullen328 is right about SPAs not wanting neutral coverage. This concern applies both to political candidates and to corporations. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I don't want to jump too deeply into this, but I should probably report CactusJack levied an incorrect accusation of a pointy nomination against Bearcat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Perceval-Maxwell and then rage-quit when I requested (retrospectively it was pretty firm, but I respect the editor) that the accusation be retracted. A block might be needed. (The edit summary was what brought me here more than anything, please note.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It looks to me as if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Perceval-Maxwell WAS a pointy nomination, given that both Dylan Perceval-Maxwell and Annamie Paul have significant detailed in-depth sources going back decades, on issues relating to their candidacies. Both are clear keeps ... and while CactusJack shouldn't be making retaliatory nominations - neither should Bearcat should make pointy ones. I'm also very concerned about Bearcat's insistence during and AFD debate that the SNG (in particular NPOL) trumps GNG, which seems to be consistent in some of their recent AFD nominations. Nfitz (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC) (more pointy than retaliatory) Nfitz (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Respectfully, Nfitz, is everything okay? I've respected your work at NFOOTY AfDs but I've noticed some odd conduct recently and given your conduct on these two nominations, your request to have a clear copyvio restored at DRV, and your request of an AfD closer to reopen a clearly unanimous deletion discussion, I'm a bit worried about you - is everything okay? SportingFlyer T·C 08:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    These two nominations both clearly and easily meet GNG. Here's the TLDR ... but thanks for the concern, I'm fine ...
    Extended content
    I wasn't aware of the extent of the copyvio when I first entered that DRV ... it wasn't mentioned in the AFD, and when I entered that debate, only part of it had been identified as a copyvio in the preceding comment; there was a clear lack of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satheesh Menon as surely if only JLP (who is still topic banned from AFD creation) endorsed deletion, then any deletion is surely subject to WP:REFUND - I didn't push the issue after the copyvio's were reported in detail ... but that doesn't mean the close was good. I've been concerned about a couple of Fenix's closes ... in the case of Foysal, I think it could be improved. In the case of Ishan Pandita, there was procedural error in closing given the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishan Pandita (2nd nomination) which was no where near unanimous, and itself somewhat questionable ... when I looked at the amount of material published about him after the 2nd AFD it just seems to me that the 3rd AFD didn't do justice to the issue. Is there an issue with me ... well ... after 3.5 months at home in lockdown perhaps I'm getting a little stir crazy ... aren't we all? ... but I suspect that I just have a lot more time on my hands to dig deeper than I usually do :). Coincidentally, I was starting to have similar concerns about Bearcat, who I've seen generally being rational in the past at AFD - particularly on Canadian articles.
    Nfitz (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Two Concerns

    Speedy Keep !Votes

    There have recently been a lot of Speedy Keep !votes in AFDs that are neither SK2 or SK3 and simply mean "I don't like this AFD". There was at least one AFD that was recently closed with a very confused bad non-admin close of Speedy Keep, but that was reversed at DRV. Saying Speedy Keep when you mean Keep does not help. It confuses. Maybe we need a species of trout to eat the Speedy Keep arguments that are insect-like. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    NPOL Restated

    User:CactusJack states that User:Bearcat's interpretation of political notability prevents improving the encyclopedia and should be ignored. That statement misunderstands the political notability criterion. Political notability is an ipso facto special notability for certain officeholders, and has been understood and agreed on for years. Individuals who do not meet it, including candidates, must be assessed by general notability. If you mean that a deletionist interpretation of general notability is harmful, say so. The issue isn't political notability, which is clear. It is general notability. There should be no disagreement about political notability. There are questions about general notability for candidates. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I believe that @CactusJack:'s issue is that User:Bearcat has the following interpretation: Any candidate is going to have coverage and would easily meet general notability. To prevent Wikipedia from being filled up, we have to apply the `additional` criteria of political notability, and it is only when they would meet WP:NPOL that their article could be accepted.
    That is the opposite of what User:Robert McClenon is saying, ie that political notability and general notability act as 2 ways to reach notability. If one is met, then the person is notable. TimeEngineer (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Something that should remembered, is that even with significant coverage, a candidate (especially a failed candidate) would only notable only for one event, as per WP:BLP1E - so there should be no concerns with either the NPOL or GNG policies. In the two AFDs that Bearcat created recently, this is all moot, as both candidates have GNG coverage going back decades - and it's here that Bearcat is erroneously claiming that NPOL trumps GNG. While the candidates political career may otherwise not be notable, it's not surprising that the leadership election of a significant federal party attracts candidates with notable histories. Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    NPOL isn't the relevant policy. We frequently clean up non-notable politicians who fail NPOL, not because NPOL is exclusionary, but because they fail WP:NOT in some way - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO, maybe WP:BLP1E, I think there may be one I'm forgetting. Almost every politician, even very local politicians, will pass GNG, meaning we hold them to a higher standard at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    SportingFlyer, indeed, and we normally fudge this by having minor candidates in a collected list of candidates for election X, and only having standalone articles for winning candidates for major office, or people who are independently notable. Guy (help!) 10:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    There is a wider discussion on GNGs and SNGs at WT:N. ANI isn't really the place to hash out what is 'erroneous'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Original concern

    • With 3 years since their rehabilitation and no blocks, I don't see an imminent concern with CJ ... the pointy AFDs have been withdrawn, and the foul language remains the issue. Let's not chase away an editor when perhaps they are at their most vulnerable. If we go that direction there'd also be boomerang potential, given Bearcat's pointy AFD, incivility, and unusual insistence that SNG trumps decades of GNG coverage. Everyone just needs to calm down. Nfitz (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • The foul language isn't the issue, it's the personal attack they levied on the way out. Bearcat's AfD was NOT pointy, and it would benefit ALL of us if you would retract those statements as well. I also do not appreciate you hijacking this request. Please refrain from interacting with me. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Bearcat brought here a complaint about a user not being civil and creating pointy AFDs, You then raised the situation escalating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamie Paul. As I'd already separately complained to Bearcat about their civility and pointy AFDs, when I saw this ANI discussion, I don't see how I had any option other than raising the issue, as a potential boomerang. The AFD was most certainly pointy ... as there was not time in 16 minutes after a different user highlighted it as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for Bearcat to read the post, do a proper BEFORE, and complete the AFD nomination. Not surprisingly when one fails to BEFORE, there is 20-years of GNG coverage, not just the recent leadership run. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Interaction Ban?

    Proposal for an interaction ban between User:Nfitz and User:SportingFlyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    How about we try playing nice first ... after almost 15 years of editing in similar AFDs, we've seldom ever disagreed much, never-mind approached the level of needing an intervention! The only User page interaction I can find ever was all very civil at User talk:Nfitz#Foysal Ahmed Fahim. The current disagreement is very minor, very specific, and I didn't even think very serious. I don't think we need interaction bans for every little thing. Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    White supremacist activism in edit history of Allama123

    Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments12 people in discussion

    Allama123 registered his username in 2012, performed a few chemistry topic edits, then disappeared for eight years. Returning in 2020, Allama123's flurry of activity has a very different flavor, with nearly every edit an attempt to skew Wikipedia into the direction of white supremacism:

    1. At the Tucker Carlson (Fox News, etc.) biography, he changed "white supremacist" to "white identitarian" and diminished the respect for Vox, GQ and Media Matters.
    2. Allama123 added a sympathetic interpretation to Ku Klux Klansmen fighting a Black man in a parking garage.[61]
    3. At the biography of alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, Allama123 sympathetically reworded things to remove the idea of conspiracy from white genocide, turning it from a conspiracy theory into an actual white genocide. This was done using primary source tweets, deleting secondary source analysis from mainstream papers.
    4. Allama123 removed conspiracy from the biography of hate speech fomenter Gemma O'Doherty.
    5. Allama123 added another reference to the article on lynching, to help support the idea that Black men are not the only ones lynched in the US. The cited source from 1910 was reporting satisfying peace in Tampa following a lynching of two Italians (thus normalizing lynching.)
    6. At the biography of Black activist and rapper Raz Simone, Allama123 added one nationalfile.com right-wing batshit crazy source calling Simone a warlord.
    7. At the biography of Black Lives Matter founder Patrice Cullors, Allama123 added the label "Marxist" without context, to be used as leverage for political attacks. Marxism has three meanings, making it a very loaded word in a biography. Note that the cited source is a Cullors quote taken out of context, and that no third party observers have analyzed Cullors' political stance to determine which of the three Marxism meanings is at play.

    Given this pattern showing the defense of white supremacist racists, and the attack on anti-racist Black activists, I propose that Allama123 be topic banned from American politics. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • The marxist label is entirely appropriate. She self-described and it was published in a reputable source. But the rest is block worthy. I'll take care of it.--v/r - TP 04:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I gotta say this is not super compelling. The Gemma O'Doherty edit is probably correct actually, no idea why you reverted that one. The Raz Simone still has the warlord stuff, not a great source they added but seems like a content issue. Finally for the marxism stuff, they are self identified. If you feel more context is needed you are free to add it but it does not seem contriversial. A lot of this seems like a content dispute and you calling another editor racist. PackMecEng (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • @Black Kite: They may well be a conspiracy theorist, that is not the problem. The problem is that a single opinion article was the source used to make that statement. I could not care less if they are one or not. I do care that we follow proper sourcing and BLP policy to do so. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • @PackMecEng: Yes, but it wasn't making the statement in Wikipedia's voice. It was, quite correctly, framed as an opinion by that journalist - who is incidentally a high-profile author who has written about scandals in Irish life, not just some random staffer - see Michael Clifford (journalist). And there are many other reliable sources in the article for her conspiracy theorism. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Then those can be used. A singular opinion article even from someone noted in the field is rarely good enough to apply a contentious label. You know that. Now if they reverted and added some of the sources you suggest that would be fine. As it sits, it is clearly not fine. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I disagree with the NAC here. The user is disputing the block, and an editor here (PackMecEng) has also questioned the block. I agree; this seems like WP:CRYRACIST more than anything. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The user was warned in Feb 2020 and again recently about the AP2 topic area and DS in that per the talk page. The edit warring behavior today, and only taking to the talk page for the first time in their editing history after doing 2 back-and-forths is a bit troubling in terms of having been warned about this. I do worry about the CRYRACIST aspect but the block is good without taking any other factors into account. --Masem (t) 05:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • It appears that I left the edit window open for a time period, and did not notice the subsequent edit by PackMecEng. Given it appears the issue / discussion may not be resolved, I have reversed the closure. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Seems to me we can go with one of three approaches here: WP:ROPE, a topic ban, or a block because this looks like a sleeper. For me, the choice would be governed by whether there are overtly racist edits. Guy (help!) 09:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Looks to me that #4 was a good edit per WP:RSOPINION and #7 was a good edit per the self-identification (I forget what shortcut that is). The rest are not meeting sourcing policy (e.g. WP:BLPRS) and have POV issues. However, I'm not seeing where this was discussed with the user, or where the user was warned, prior to being blocked. Seems like those are two important steps that were skipped here. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm not going to try to save every racist account with 38 edits. Registering accounts is cheap and easy to do and this project would spend all it's energy trying to rehabilitate racists and trolls if we did that. WP:DFTT.--v/r - TP 19:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
        Nobody's asking you to save or rehabilitate. Maybe template, because WP:AGF. Let's say an admin faces this exact situation 10 times. Option A: admin blocks. Option B: admin templates first, then blocks on the next offending edit (if any). And let's say the admin's "gut" is right 90% of the time, and 9 out of 10 of those times, the editor is a troll, and 1 out of 10, it's a good faith editor who made a mistake. Under option A, we lose the good faith editor. Under option B, we gain a good faith editor at the cost of 9 bad edits. I'll take one editor for 9 bad edits any day of the week. Let's say this happens not 10 times but 100 times, and the admin is right not 90% but 99% of the time. I'll still take one good editor for 99 bad edits. It's very cheap to warn first, and it pays huge dividends if we gain a whole, entire new good-faith editor, at the cost of a few bad edits. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 22:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
        Bad edits do have a cost, of course—someone has to deal with them. And over time, we lose good editors because they get burnt out by large volumes of unchecked tendentious editing, POV-pushing, and nth chances provided because someone on AN/I wanted to look magnanimous at no cost to themselves. A high tolerance for trolling/bad editing is cheap only if you attach little or no value to the time and goodwill of our constructive contributor base. No comment on what should happen to this particular editor; I just dispute the framing that giving "rope" to trolls is "cheap". MastCell Talk 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
        I don't believe that any established editor has ever been driven off the project because of an edit made by an account with 38 edits in between being warned and being blocked. When established editors are driven off the project, it's because of the actions of other established editors. I think if this editor had been warned before being blocked, the risk that this editor would have driven off any other editor is 0%. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
        If you ever become an admin it will be a misfortune for the project, and if you get on Arbcom it will be a catastrophe. Insight and expressiveness like yours should roam free and unfettered. EEng 02:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
      On that note, I'm driving off into the sunset and hopefully through the invisible fence that binds us. There may be a cacophony, some carnage, a coyote. EEng, this is not your fault. You hear me?!? Levi, don't you cry-ee-eye tonight! MastCell, you're alright. Alamma123, "white identitarian" is the worst phrase I've ever seen put to paper, even online. Just on a word level, nothing racist, but the worst I've seen regardless. Either you be sentenced to adminship, or I keep on driving! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Indeed glad to hear that something's not my fault (for once) but I have no idea what you're talking about. EEng 09:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    MastCell, agreed, but I am not sure this is a troll, necessarily. Most of the edits seem decent, if perhaps lacking robust sourcing. Guy (help!) 09:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Self-reporting

    Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    otherwise I am sure someone will do it today. {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} has been taken to TfD two years ago and deleted (converted to a wrapper), against my objections Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 3#Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality. A month ago I discovered that the new version imports unsourced and presumably wrong data from Wikidata (presumably because {{Infobox Settlement}} does it) and this data is shown on the English Wikipedia unless overwritten per article. I have opened a topic at WP:VP/P (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 158#Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality, Wikidata, and verifiability) and the suggestion which came out was to go to Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. I did that, Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality and import of bad data, and as a result RexSS opened a topic at the talk page of a template. There was very little participation, with two users plus me stating this is a problem and nobody opposed. The topic has been open for 3 weeks, with no new reactions for 2 weeks, and today I reverted the template back to pre-TfD state. Whereas this clearly goes against the TfD consensus, and whereas I am clearly involved, I do not see how these two factors could be above WP:V, which is one of the cornerstones of our project. I do not quite see what else I could have done to have WP:V enforced. In principle, this (import of unsourced or sourced to Wikipedia fields of the template from Wikidata) is the general problem of {{Infobox Settlement}} and probably needs to be fixed (after which my edits can be rolled back), but I do not see how I can have it fixed without risking my mental and physical health.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Ymblanter, annoying: technical purity versus factual accuracy. I think factual accuracy should win. Guy (help!) 09:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    As I see it, the consensus at this 2020 discussion overrides the consensus at this 2018 discussion. Nothing unusual about that, it happens all the time (WP:CCC). Thank you for implementing the 2020 consensus. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The sad thing is that it's perfectly possible to create an infobox that only pulls sourced information from Wikidata, but the editors converting the infobox chose not to do so, leaving it liable to breach WP:V and clearly contradicting the consensus found at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC #Discussion: "if Wikipedia wants to use data from Wikidata, there needs to be clear assurances on the reliability of this data.". --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    User:Theknightswhosay

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

    As their recent edits on Stefan Molyneux show, despite warnings, User:Theknightswhosay is WP:NOTHERE and merits a quick block for repeatedly vandalizing a protected article. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Vandals are the people who describe someone with no white nationalist content as a white nationalist and who think the Independent is an unbiased factual news sourceTheknightswhosay (talk)

    I am not sure about NOTHERE, but if the user continues reverting reliably sourced material, a block would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Ymblanter: They are continuing to edit war with Greyfell and just wrote this uncivil comment on their talk page: I know most editors on this page are partisan hacks who want to smear anyone with whom they disagree. If they were ever here in the past to build an encyclopedia, they clearly no longer are. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I blocked for 72h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    This edit from Safehaven86 (talk · contribs)looks interesting as well, might be worth a CU's time to check that edit! Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 14:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    User:AboriginsDude

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Any admins from meta or incubator here? I would like to report User:AboriginsDude for vandalizing my user talk page on incubator. We have reported this on meta and incubator community portals but we have not received any response from the admins there. Also, what I know is that this user is already blocked here in en.wiki. Seems like this user is a sock of User:My Royal Young based from the vandal's behavior. -WayKurat (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @WayKurat: you may want to try stewards.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Ymblanter: User:Þjarkur already posted a report there but there still no action. The vandal keeps on posting a picture of Osama Bin Laden on our user page and trolls us whenever we revert them. -WayKurat (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    User:111.125.119.6

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Hi. I would like to seek assistance for any administrator to block the user talk page edit rights of this IP address. This IP was blocked last Monday for three months but the vandal keeps on editing their user talk page and even posting Filipino profanities there (see here). I have posted this to AIV before but my request is being automatically removed by the cleanup bot. Thanks in advance. -WayKurat (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

      Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Official Varun Dhiman

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    BLOCKED
    Official Blocked Spammer. Guy (help!) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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


    Seems like a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE; they've now recreated a personal page for themselves for the third time after being speedily deleted twice already (I have since re-tagged it). Their only other non-deleted edits was to replace an existing article with the same copy of their desired user page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I just indeffed them. Page hijacking for self promotion, using pages to promote themselves. Not here. And gone. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple issues: discretionary sanctions, COVID, other

    Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

    Articles

    Hydroxychloroquine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Hinokitiol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ionophore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Chloroquine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Zinc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Iron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Iron deficiency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Adding Zinc oxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Editors

    Georgedouglas123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Mandem123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Mr.MAGC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Notices

    COI query from HaeB: [62]
    Response (concerning) from Georgedouglas123: [63]
    Notice from me pointing towards discretionary sanctions [64] and personal attacks in edit summaries: [65] [66]

    And, reverts continue: [67] [68] [69] [70], those are samples only, there are more.

    Looks like commercial interests and potential coordinated editing, and breach of COVID discretionary sanctions after notification. NOTHERE. I will next notify the three editors linked above, and @DePiep: who is reverted multiple times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I indeffed the first two per WP:NOTHERE (and being likely socks of each other) and protected Zinc. The third one mainly edited in their sandbox, and I do not see them participating in the edit-warring together with the other two. Probably somebody understanding what they are trying to say should have a look at their edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I posted to WT:MED, so hopefully the pharm people will be on it soon. Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    IMO these edits are particularly concerning [71] [72]. It's one thing to add promotional nonsense about the wonders hinokitiol to the hinokitiol article [73] [74], it's another to add it it to other broad articles. Both also seem to be a clear attempt to promote the specific "patented" or patent pending DrZinx by Advanced Nanotek and AstiVita, similar to this [75] from the blocked editor. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Remedies by Ymblanter look fine. I consider done, but for new info turning up (WP:MED?). -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    If a pharm person can get to this, they might also examine these edits; not my field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I pending changes protected Iron deficiency in response to an unsourced and dubious claim. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    2601:8B:C300:4A70:5D09:1427:2C4C:4D51

    Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

    IP (possibly range too, as the range is currently blocked...) seems to need a TPA revoke. See their recent edit history on User talk:2601:8B:C300:4A70:5D09:1427:2C4C:4D51. Also, with all of this vandalism/disruptive editing, I think a longer block than just 2 weeks may be necessary... Magitroopa (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Much easier to req page protection yourself. Try WP:DENY Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Their vandalism on their own talk page while blocked is quite extensive, and vandalism on other articles prior to block (and on previous IPs in the range) are extensive as well. I'd definitely say a longer block (possibly indef) and TPA revoke is needed. Magitroopa (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Great, you still didn't answer why a simple WP:RPP wouldn't solve this? No admin in their right mind is going to indef an IP. Unbroken Chain (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    This IP vandalised my talk page (if this is any relevent to this discussion) [76] P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    There is almost no problem with indefing an IPv6. The chances are better that the vandal gets hit by lightning three times in the same year that that of their IPv6 being allocated to another user. --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @RexxS: Slight nuance there that those chances are better for now. There's no guarantee that they will be ad infinitum; indeed, it's likely that in the coming years-to-decades the IPv6 available address range will narrow fairly significantly, as potentially billions more connected devices get IPv6 addresses. Not that I'm suggesting that indefs of IPv6 addresses are a bad idea as a whole, just I think we should be wary about putting ourselves in a position of having lots of IPv6 indefs, because sooner or later, they will start to be reused more frequently. "Not as wary as IPv4" isn't necessarily the same as "block the same way as a user account", I guess is the gist. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Naypta: If you do the maths, you'll find that the IPv6 range won't narrow significantly before the heat death of the universe. A few billion more devices won't make the slightest dent in the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 blocks of /64 ranges available. I could indef one /64 range per second for the next hundred years without blocking even 0.00000002% of the available /64 ranges. In other words, there are a lot more IPv6s that you might think.   --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @RexxS: I could indef one /64 range per second for the next hundred years without blocking even 0.00000002% of the available /64 ranges - is that a threat?   That notwithstanding, I agree that it seems unlikely, but we probably would have said the same thing about IPv4 (more than 4 billion addresses! how will we ever run out?) - I'm not saying it's a certainty by any means, but it's something to bear in mind   Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @RexxS and Naypta: That is emphatically not correct. It is only correct when IPv6 privacy extensions are enabled; often, however, the last 64 bits are deterministic based on the MAC address. The first 64 bits are in fact often statically assigned. Also, Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses very clearly states that IP addresses, categorically, should never be indefinitely blocked. I ask that you respect that consensus-supported version, and if you disagree, open an RfC to change this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with Jasper Deng's word of caution above. IPv6 addresses are not necessarily assigned randomly—external factors, depending on the ISP, may still result in collateral damage. It remains against common practice to block IP addresses indefinitely, even when it is a /64 IPv6 address range, and I would strongly advise administrators not to deviate from this practice without prior consensus. Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) @Jasper Deng: it definitely is correct. First, IPv6s are normally allocated in blocks of /64 to the same connection. Secondly, it is demonstrably true that the last 64 bits are not determined by the MAC address, since you can now see the contributions of any /64 block and observe how they change over time, while the same user is obviously editing; whereas MAC addresses are fixed. Third, it doesn't matter whether the first 64 bits are static or dynamic as there are so many of them, the chances of reuse are close to zero. Finally, I know what WP:IPBLENGTH says and I know how out-of-date it is, and I'm sure you do too. I have no desire to block any IPv6s indefinitely, so I find no need to waste time on arguing about changing the policy. I guess somebody who gives a damn will do that sooner or later. Or not. I'm only having a bit of fun pointing out the silliness of treating IPv6s as if they were IPv4s. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @RexxS: No. IPv6_address#Stateless_address_autoconfiguration clearly states otherwise. The only reason why it might seem that they are random in practice is privacy extensions but we have no way of telling for any given case. None. And the chances of reuse depend on the address assignment method; it is very conceivable that some DHCPv6 servers assign /64 prefixes sequentially. In any case, this "random" behavior is not observed for addresses assigned directly by DHCPv6 or static addresses. A clear example is furnished by Special:Contribs/2600:387:5:800:0:0:0:0/60, where the addresses are clearly allocated either sequentially or otherwise in such a way that only the last byte of the address really gets varied.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Speaking from the perspective of a CheckUser, I have certainly checked IPv6 ranges as narrow as a /64 on which there were a multitude of unrelated users sharing the range—there are some Internet service providers out there that simply allocate their address space in this way, especially in countries with highly dynamic addressing like the UK. While I am willing to concede that there are some situations where what you are saying may be true, we should be cautious about forming generalizations, and I don't fault Jasper for advising caution. Mz7 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It would be very unusual for /64 to hold multiple users, but I concede it could happen. Indeed, if an IP had an IPv6 /64 block allocation comparable to the number of their customers, then the randomness would disappear. Given the cheapness of IPv6s, I find that a very unlikely scenario in the current circumstances, but I concede it's not impossible. It's also true that the bundling of groups of addresses to simplify routing reduces the randomness, but again there really are so many possible /64 blocks, that the chances of reuse of an IPv6 remain minute. I agree fully that we should always err on the side of caution, but I maintain that the degree of caution required to minimise issues when blocking IPv6s is nothing like that needed when blocking IPv4s. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Concubinage in Islam/Slavery in Islam

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I don't know anything about the subject and I'm not interested in it. The revision history was a shit show of reverts (edit warring) and moves until CambridgeBayWeather WP:MOVP'd the page. I hope that interested administrators and editors could take a look at the page and see if they can resolve the dispute. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

      Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 20:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    IP repeatedly leaving unwanted message on my talk page.

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

    I asked 90.226.9.16 to stop leaving messages on my talk page after it became clear that a discussion we were having was going in circles. I first asked the user to stop on June 16th. The user left me two more messages on the 17th. I asked again, and the user left another message on the 20th. I cleared out my user talk page the same day following the advice from help desk, but on July 1st the user left yet another message. Furthermore it seems like the user was trying to pit me against another user by vandalising chopsticks. I asked for my talk page to be semi-protected, but apparently that is not allowed for my case. I just want to stop receiving any further useless notification from the user. How hard does it have to be???? --Yel D'ohan (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    That IP address used to belong to the blocked user, BjörnBergman. Frankly, it seems there's a good chance it's still that same person, evading their block. I base this on the continued focus on longevity articles, such as this (and other) edits to Jiroemon Kimura, made in June, and this edit to List of the oldest people by country made in March. The account is probably too old for an SPI, though, and I'll note that the IP isn't focusing exclusively on longevity articles. Nevertheless, I suggest a block for the behaviour raised above, and making it an extended block given the likelihood that this is a blocked user returning to cause trouble. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    As the IP repeatedly posted after being asked not to, I've blocked them for a week for WP:Harassment. If the behaviour recurs after that, I'll make a longer block on notification. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    37.130.126.241

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) Talk page access revoked, block extended. Darkknight2149 19:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Can someone revoke this IP's TPA? Adam9007 (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    TPG violation

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) Fixed, per Dennis Brown. Darkknight2149 20:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    We have an IP 107.77.213.157 here with a penchant, somewhat, for violating talk page guidelines and treating them as a forum. Examples include this, blanking their talk page, or here. A review of their recent history would indicate they appear to have a history of trolling, refer to this and this. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Over-zealous vandal fighter: need eyes on their edits

    Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

    We have a new vandal fighter, Imgoodcop (talk · contribs), who has been extremely prolific, extremely inaccurate, and extremely scattershot in his vandal-fighting. False reverts of vandalism and incomplete reverts abound, as I have found by going through quite a few of their edits. Examples are this, this, and this. Could people keep an eye on their contributions and intervene if necessary? I can't really do this myself because the user seems to be in an incompatible time zone (I've barely been able to keep up with their edits as it is). Graham87 14:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Also pinging Incagnito and AviationFreak, who have dealt with this user. I think I've recently noticed another user behaving similarly ... however, I can't find their username by searching my contribs and I have no idea what became of them. Graham87 14:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I agree that this user has made some significant mistakes, not adhering to WP:AGF and often being "scattershot" in their edits & reverts. I think some significant notice and warning would be of use here. This user often reverts edits that needn't be reverted and are done in good faith with the intention of making Wikipedia a more informative and accurate source. I think a good example of this behavior is here. AviationFreak💬 14:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I've just done a few spot checks on their reverting, and it did not take long to find numerous examples of problematic reverting. This is made worse by the fact that they almost never use edit summaries. I see that you have already approach them about this - I'll warn them to slow down. They don't appear to have edited in about 12 hours, so presumably have been offline since you raised this, but if they persist with this please let me know. GirthSummit (blether) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Graham87, well I gave my 2 cents of their talk page. Let's see. If it proceeds I think we can assume that they either don't comprehend or don't care. Either way further action will be required. We'll find out soon enough! Glen 15:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    WP:NPOV problem over at Core Issues Trust and WP:3RR Violation by User:92.2.40.111

    Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) Blocked by GeneralNotability. Darkknight2149 19:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    I'm currently enrolled in the CUVA program and am now in the Tools part of the program to learn more about recent changes patrolling. I came across 92.2.40.111 (talk · contribs)'s edits on Core Trust Issues and saw that it violated WP:NPOV. I had asked the user to change the phrasing of the term to a neutral one instead of forcing a phrase that goes against WP:NPOV. Instead of complying, the user has accused me of defending whatever Core stands for, the user is likewise stubborn as seen by the user saying that it will keep editing the page over and over again. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Pinging @Tarheel95: as the user has also discussed the matter with the IP User.

    IP User here. The problem I had in the first place has now been resolved. The term 'issue' should not be used in sensitive topics such as this. Therefore, I have changed it to topic now and consider this problem closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.40.111 (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @92.2.40.111: I'm glad that you came around, I would consider the matter closed too because you've resolved the WP:NPOV issue. But there's still the matter of the 3RR. You were actively engaged in edit-warring, I didn't revert you the last time around precisely because that was a violation of edit warring. The 3RR matter you still have to face though, very sorry to say. Gardo Versace (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I haven't came around. Ban me from editing, I don't care. This has just proven there are much more reliable sources of information than WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.40.111 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • I can speak to the validity of both issues regarding repeated ignorance of the policy at WP:NPOV as well as violation of the Three revert rule. User does not seem to acknowledge the NPOV conflict and has engaged in repeated reversions to biased content even when alerted to the policy violations dicussed above and on user's talkpage. Tarheel95 (Talk) 16:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Please note that I also issued an 'only warning' to this editor, over a personal attack towards another editor shown here. It looks like other editors have subsequently issued a significant amount of warnings for violating NPOV. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia in my view. Best, Darren-M talk 17:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

    IP editor is NOTHERE as far as I'm concerned. Page protected, IP blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=965684408"