Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here. If you encounter a threat of physical violence, suicide, etc., click here. If you need help on editing or help with your account, please ask the Teahouse. To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here. To challenge deletion, click here. To request page protection, click here. To report edit warring, click here. To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here. Before posting a grievance about a user on this page: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page Or try dispute resolution. Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly. Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses. If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here. Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end. Closed discussions should not usually be 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. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion

Centralized discussion

• How to refer to subjects when previous works credit them under a deadname
• Disambiguation pages in orange
• Deprecating speedy deletion criterion T3
• meta: Initiatives of recommendations

Proposal to take action against User:GPinkerton

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

Edit warring

1. In 6 March 2020, they edit warred on Bulgaria during World War II: [1], [2], [3].
   • They were warned by the other party here (among other warnings).
2. In 9 May 2020, they edit warred on Basilica: [4], [5], [6].
   • They were warned by the other party here.
   • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as no violation (of 3RR in particular). A warning was issued to respect BRD. See here.
3. In 15-16 May 2020, they edit warred on Catholicity: [7], [8], [9] (manually).
   • They were warned by the other party here.
4. In 28 June 2020, they were blocked for 48h for edit-warring on Vashti: [10], [11], [12] (manual), [13].
   • See the relevant report at WP:AN3 here.
   • They appealed the block twice, being declined once and accepted the other.
5. In 24 July 2020, they edit warred on Hagia Sophia: [14], [15].
   • They were warned by the other party here and later by an admin here.
   • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as content dispute. The closing admin thought it qualifies for a block, if not confounded by other parties involved.
6. In 28 July 2020, they edit warred on Mehmed the Conqueror: [16], [17].
   • They were informally warned by a third party here.
7. In 26 September 2020, they edit warred on Constantine the Great and Christianity over which English spelling variety should be used: [18], [19].
   • They were informally warned by an admin here.
8. In 19 November 2020, they were blocked again, this time for 24h, for edit warring on Murder of Samuel Paty: [20], [21], [22], [23].
   • The blocking admin sought consensus for the block in light of an appeal by GPinkerton. Consensus was granted unanimously.
9. In 21 November 2020, they edit warred again on Murder of Samuel Paty: [24] and [25] (manual).

Ad hominem and harassment

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

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

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

Canvassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permanent block

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

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

He has been on WP:AN3 a lot too:

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

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

He has been on WP:ANI too:

1. ANI Archive 1047
2. ANI Archive 1044

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support per personal unpleasant experience with this editor and proven, long-term battleground mentality, resulting in the conclusion that this editor is not ready for community editing. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for perma blocking GPinkerton from Wikipeida. The user has recently wreaked havoc at the Syrian kurdistan article introducing a large amount of nationalistic pov edits. The user refuses to engage in a cooperative manner at the talkpage.[26][27] There is no end in sight to this users disruptive behavior.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Editors should again note the POV pushing causing the issues here is in large part the responsibility of the editors above, who are quite desperate that their respective bias be reflected in Wikivoice. This has already been discussed to death by the tendentiousness of these editors. Spreeme Delciousness is avowedly determined to suppress NPOV in relation to the Kurds, and has explained their crusade a number of times. GPinkerton (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Do you mean "siteban"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support The user lacks the necessary civility to be able to cooperate and compromise. He resorts to insults and attacks and have a battleground mentality. I for once could not restrain myself and treated him as he treats others, then suggested that he show respect in order to get it back, for which he replied with: I have no need of what you imagine to be respect from yourself. This user is impossible to argue with, as for him, any editor that oppose him is full of nonesense and the only accepted arguments are his own. See these diffs where he calls every argument he does not like "non-sense", or reject it without any willingness to understand other parties' arguments: 1, 2, 3, here he outright reject to discuss despite being urged to!- In short, this editor, with his rude childish behaviour and battleground mentality is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Just read his replies to other users here in the compliant, and it will give you a clear image of how he goes around here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This is another editor whose edits have only been to pursue the bizarre conspiracy theory that Syrian Kurdistan does not exist or should not be referred to as such in the encyclopaedia. It is hardly surprising that this editor, whom I have reported for tendentious editing, would seek to have me removed. GPinkerton (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have taken a look at the evidence presented and although there are certainly some behavioral problems and some CIR issues, I see nothing that would justify an indef block or a site ban at this point. Much of the case consists of heated content disputes which is not, by itself, actionable. Things like "Can you read?" in an edit summary qualify as mild incivility but certainly not harassment. Some other diffs indicate more substantial episodic incivility but not harassment. Of the three ANI threads opens regarding GPinkerton, one [28] was quickly closed as "No violation". The third [29] was closed as "Content dispute, no action". The second, filed by Debresser on June 27, 2020, [30] was closed as 48 hour blocks for both parties. IMO, Debresser's participation in this thread and his presenting of evidence above has already poisoned the well in this discussion. His own behaviour appears to be at least as problematic in these disputes and his block record is much much longer, plus there is a pile of Arbcom restrictions on top of that. If there are any indef blocks to be handed out as a result of this thread, I think it would have to be to both of them, but I don't believe that's a good idea. ANI is a poor venue for handlinging entrenched POV disputes of this kind, they belong at ARBCOM and that's where the parties should be dirtected. We might consider a two-way interaction ban between GPinkerton and Debresser. Some of the other participants in this discussion so far appear to be deeply involved in the said content disputes themselves, and to have POV agendas of their own. E.g. the first thing one sees at the talk page of Supreme Deliciousness is them strengously arguing that West Jerusalem is not located in Israel, User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2020/October#West Jerusalem. Enough said. Nsk92 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Looking a little closer at some of the diffs provided by the OP under 'Edit warring', diff number 1 [31] for Bulgaria during World War II appears to be an effort by GPinkerton to clean up language that had been white-washing the level of complicity of the WWII Bulgarian government in the persecution of Bulrarian Jews at the behest of the Nazis. While edit warring is never a good idea, I have much less sympathy for anything that has even a slightest whiff of Holocaust denial. Seeing these diffs being used as exhibit A in this report reduces the credibility of the report in my eyes quite a bit. As I said above, if the parties really want to pursue this matter further, they should file an Arbcom case and duke it out there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• • It should be noted Supreme Deliciousness was at ArbCom 10 years ago, being given a topic ban for national/ethnic disruption to the encyclopaedia's coverage of middle east. Presumably, they have been at it the whole duration of the Syrian Civil War. GPinkerton (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose as per Nsk92. My only experience so far of GPinkerton has been around Syria articles, where they have been smiting the nationalists hip and thigh (and deservedly so). GPinkerton is a breath of fresh air who has a commendable impatience with those who would subvert this encyclopedia for their own ends. As for the rest, I get the strong impression that GPinkerton is more sinned against than sinning. Konli17 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • @Ivanvector: I'll make that clear. My understanding was that directly pinging an admin who was more likely to approve of one's proposal would be understood as pushy. In case you noticed, I also refrained from mentioning any other editor I quoted. I actually thought this would be understood as more professional, until your comment here. As for context, your first remark was relevant because you were almost the only admin to raise the concern I was bringing here: failing to understand a core policy, such as that of vandalism, is too dangerous that it deserves a block until otherwise is proven. Since your comment was split into two edits, I chose to link the second so that the first would thereby also show as prev, not to take anything out of context. I was also keen on addressing the entirety of it by the paraphrase until they show understanding and retract their remarks, lest it be understood that you're calling for a block whatsoever. Apropos of the 2nd quote, you being the closing admin, the comment you left post-closure was at the centre of the thread. I paraphrased it as explained below. Finally, I don't think I'd be having any extra energy and time to go for ArbCom. I'll merely withdraw from contributing side-by-side with GPinkerton, hoping that what I've proposed here will be enough both to alert the community and to urge GPinkerton to cease. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment What's a "permanent block"? The only thing that can really be called that are certain WMF bans which cannot be appealed. (AFAIK, the WMF doesn't specifically say what results in such an unappealable ban but it's probably mostly child protection reasons.) If someone wanted such ban, they would need to speak to the WMF. We could do an indefinite community site ban here. But indefinite is not supposed to mean permanent. While it's hard to imagine some long term socks who have cause untold disruption coming back, if they stop and 10 years down the track they make a very good appeal, perhaps they'll be allowed back. In any case, if we're discussing implementing the ban here it's unlikely it's reached that level. More likely it's a regular community indef site ban. Such site bans often can be successfully appealed in 6 months to 1 year. If it's just an admin indefinite block and doesn't involve any socking there may not even be a minimum appeal period although it would depend on what happened before and the chances an admin can be convinced the editor will change. This isn't just an aside since when making proposals, it helps if you have some understanding of community norms since otherwise people like me think the evidence isn't worth looking at. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nil Einne: Please note that the editor who opened this subsection is different from the OP, which is me. I actually didn't even vote here. Yet, while I don't approve of its content, moving it to another section by me would very likely be interpreted as aggressive. Deleting it altogether would be even disruptive. It's readers' responsibility, I believe, to resolve the ambiguity. It takes a look at the signatures. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Assem Khidhr: I don't understand your point. Although I'm sometimes careless with the word OP to mean the OP of a subthread or even unmarked subdiscussion, I don't see where I said anything about OP or original poster in my comment above. And as far as I can tell, User:Debresser is the one who use term "permanent block" and also who made the proposal I'm commenting on namely to "permanently blocked" GPinkerton [32] because "Gpinkerton has been involved in conflicts almost every month" and "He has been on WP:AN3 a lot" etc with only a passing mention of "the report" under which they started this proposal. There are a bunch of other sub discussions here including the original starting thread by you where you suggested action without suggesting any specific action since you weren't sure what (which is fine). I make no comment on them. It seems to be the quicker we dismiss this nonsense proposal, the better we can deal with whatever other issues may or may not exist. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • @Nil Einne: I thought it was the evidence I put forth that you believe isn't worth looking at, as if it was being scapegoated for this subsection. Pardon me then. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a permanent block, because GPinkerton has made many valuable contributions to wikipedia. But GPinkerton should be given a warning of a topic ban on "Muslims and controversy" if they continue their behavior. Consider:

• At WP:RSN, GPinkerton questioned the reliability of widely published academics, in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim"[33] or "true-believers"[34]. An academic's religion (or race, gender etc) must never be a factor in their WP:Reliability, period.
• At Talk:Hagia_Sophia/Archive_5#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_4_August_2020, GPinkerton pushed a ridiculous and false anti-Muslim story (Drmies described it as "anti-Muslim propaganda") and edit-warred to have it inserted into the article (warning against said edit-warring).
• At Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty GPinkerton pushed, what WhinyTheYounger called, the idea that "Islam is incompatible with free expression", refusing to recognize that is both possible to be a moderate Muslim who condemns the murder but also condemns the publication of the cartoons.
• Anytime GPinkerton disagrees with someone, they make allegations of extremism. When GPinkerton edit warred against three users, they accused their opponents of a "campaign to enforce blasphemy law on Wikipedia"[35]. Later they accused Assem Khidhr of being an "anti-blasphemy ringleader"[36]. This creates a toxic atmosphere for Muslim Wikipedians.VR _talk 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong Oppose can't believe a user even has the idea of a block for GPinkerton. He has a sharp tone in discussions but is a rather experienced editor. At Syrian Kurdistan at least better than me where GP (I'm thinking of a Grand Prix for GPinkerton) argued with multiple academic sources for an existence of Syrian Kurdistan, while Amr Ibn and Supreme Deliciousness clinged to a book review of a no-name Phd candidate as a source for a denial of Syrian KurdistanParadise Chronicle (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Comment What strikes me the hardest is how the attention of both admins and users simply shifted into a peripheral comment, albeit significantly less organized and poorly structured, only because it can be tackled in the form of a simply binary survey rather than a nuanced discussion. This is probably a stark example of WP:STRAW. It also shows, unluckily, how much tolerance is left in the community for topics deemed as potential flame wars and how many presumptions are in place about editors still interested therein. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block and a Site Ban - We know that Syrian Kurdistan is a real battleground. We can see that the subject editor is engaging in battleground editing. While this thread is open, they are continuing to rant at WP:AN, and are a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Response to GPinkerton

I wrote this in response to GPinkerton comment above:

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

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

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

1. 16:23, 10 November 2020 GPinkerton introduces the statement Protests were held in X against Macron's defence of human rights. (X being Syria, Iraq, and Libya) in the article for the 1st time.
2. 05:06, 18 November 2020 I came across the vague statement. Being WP:BOLD, I tried to reword the reporting of the protests in Syria section with WP:ATTRIBUTION to Macron.
3. 05:33, 18 November 2020‎ I noticed the same statement verbatim in Lybia and Iraq sections. I did the same replacement, gave rationale, and omitted attrbution for redundancy. (notice that the two edits were consecutive without any intervening edits by another user).
4. 06:52, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton reverts my edit.
5. 07:07, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton further deletes the attribution to Macron, qualifying it as editorializing.
6. 07:10, 18 November 2020 Proceeding in BRD, I reverted GPinkerton, citing in my summary The Guardian's article with an exact wording (my 1st revert).
7. 07:10-07:36, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton makes a series of edits elsewhere in the article: [37], [38], [39].
8. 05:44, 19 November 2020‎ Almost 24h later, GPinkerton reinstates the same statement witout any discussion.
9. 08:32, 19 November 2020 Moved by the absence of WP:REVEXP and BRD WP:STONEWALLING, I further reverted GPinkerton again while alluding to the manipulation of WP:3RR as per WP:SPADE (my 2nd revert). This was indeed a violation of the exemplary 1RR.
10. 08:54, 19 November 2020 GPinkerton reverts again.
11. 09:11, 19 November 2020 Further proceeding in BRD, I started a discussion 17 mins after their 2nd revert. I declared my intent to withdraw from any further reverts.
12. 09:14-09:51, 19 November 2020 Another editor tries to wP:HANDLE here. They were reverted by GPinkerton here.
13. 09:58-10:46, 19 November 2020 Yet another editor opposes GPinkerton in [40], [41], and [42], only to be reverted by GPinkerton in [43], [44], [45], [46]. This user was warned of edit warring by the blocking admin here, for which they apologized here.
14. 11:07, 19 November 2020 GPinkerton is blocked for 24h for edit warring, as shown previously.

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Debresser interaction ban

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

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

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

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

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

• Support one-way. I'd oppose making it two-way, as this is clearly Debresser following GPinkerton around trying to bait him, not a two-way street. ‑ Iridescent 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I proposed a permanent block here for GPinkerton now, because at an earlier date admins, like Ivanvector, were not yet ready to see the underlying problematic attitude of GPinkerton. It seems that admins already see what I meant then. That justifies my post. If one were not allowed to ask for sanctions against a longtime problematic editor, then Wikipedia is really in trouble! Ergo, I strongly oppose an interaction ban based for this reasoning. There is no need for an interaction ban on other pages, since we don't as a rule edit the same articles. As stated above by Cullen238,[47] forums like WP:ANI are not restricted to admins, and anybody can post here, and Ivanvector's claim that I posted here "just to cause trouble" is a bad faith assumption. To the contrary, I posted here to try and make Wikipedia a better place. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I've seen the same almost spammy comment twice for now. On a side note, @Ivanvector:, my link above still works for me, as of now. Also, I did interpret and deliberately addressed what you mentioned in your comment by confounded by other parties involved. To reiterate, by "involved", I meant all the editors who were involved in the AN report, not only those who engaged in the edit war. Idk whether you read this part, but I'm honestly shocked you thought of it as a twist. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't punish editors for raising valid concerns. Lev¡vich 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Levivich that this isn't the appropriate time for a boomerang. Debresser was correct in bringing this to the community in light of the behavioral issues and was filing a sensible and legitimate case. This iban proposal is redirecting the thread from the real problem at hand to unrelated and less significant matters. Krow750 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose While an editor should not follow another everywhere, there is a deep root for these reports against GPinkerton: his incivility. This is what should be addressed. This isnt really about the content disputes, but the provocation and impoliteness of GPinkerton, who have no understanding of the meaning of discussion, civility, or cooperation and compromise. This is stressful for other editors, and this should be handled, and thats why Im against this ban, because Debresser brought to light examples of the toxic behaviour of GPinkerton, whom Im sure will respond to my comment in his typical rude way full of accusations and intentions interpretations, while never understanding that its his rudeness, battleground mentality, pushiness, and lack of understanding of whatever goes against what he is convinced in, are whats getting him here. If he is not forced to respect other users, he will be back here over and over again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - wouldn't wish that on my worst detractor. Admins have tools to stop HOUNDING - don't need no iBans. Atsme 💬 📧 15:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. GPinkerton is the one who needs to be blocked here, not Debresser. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see why this is necessary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest that a previously unvolved editor close this thread now. It seems clear, at least to me, that none of the proposals put forward are going to generate consesus. I think the discussion is well past the point of yielding anything constructive. I still think that the disputes raised here are best suited for Arbcorm and for WP:AE. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support no sign of improvement yet. GPinkerton (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be mutual. Just that you are nominated for a sitewide block, and I for an interaction ban with that same editor, who is nominated for a sidewide block. See the difference? Debresser (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support (would support a one way interaction ban, i.e. Debresser disallowed to interact with GPinkerton, too): Debresser's recent behaviour w.r.t. the New Schubert Edition article, including edit-warring and retaliation, makes me doubt whether they are here to build an encyclopedia. The evidence of their failing (to put it mildly) behaviour towards GPinkerton is clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This is just an attempt at revenge for me calling you out on your WP:OWN issues at that page. Low. very low. Even for somebody from the Low Countries. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich. ~ HAL333 23:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Close with warning

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

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

• Support As per Levivich's reasoning on getting a consensus, and Cullen in moving on. I would add that Levivich's wording should be amended to 'will' as opposed to 'may'. Any content issues that User:GPinkerton may have, or any narrow but valid points in their arguments on content that they may make, should be made within the boundaries of WP:editwar and WP:civility. Simon Adler (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  <pedantic wonk mode>The problem with "will" is that because we're all volunteers, we cannot require an admin to issue a block. The most we can do is agree that if there are future violations, an admin has consensus to block without further warning, should an admin volunteer to do so at that time.</pedantic wonk mode> Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, <pedantic wonk advice> duly taken. Simon Adler (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Such was already the conclusion of the #Permanent_block section above, so no need to propose this separately. For the record, I think this is a mistake, and that we will yet have grief from this editor. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I hope he will learn how to discuss with respect, discuss sources and arguments not persons and intentions, and to stop putting other point of views down instead of trying to understand and argue in a civil way. Hopefully he ditch the childish teen manners (unless he is a teen...) My hope is weak though.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I was repeatedly called a Islamophobe and also after a final warning the editor wasn't blocked initially but only after my insistence. This (as to me) is way worse than asking one if he can read or speaks English as first language. Then, I also have faced heavier edit warring than this so called edit war here. Mine goes on since May, and there is no action taken even though the opposing editor refuses to answer at the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose closing with no action; we clearly need to do something here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Again attacking: Ivanvector, you told GP that "your next ad hominem will be your last." Well, despite the cases here, despite discussing a warning for his lack of civility, he did it again a few hours ago: You're showing your ignorance again. I don't know why you bother continuing to reply in reality-based encyclopaedia. I am not inclined to listen further to your griping. This was a sample of a long relpy of his full of attacks. For how long? Is civility not a policy of Wikipedia? Drmies, Girth Summit, Cullen328, Levivich, would you care to see this?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

While people here have been discussing user Gpinkerton behavior, that user was continuing their rude, uncivil personal attacks elsewhere. Here are some examples: here, here, here on top of their previous attacks. This shows there is no cure for their addiction to this aggressive behavior and they don't belong in an encyclopedia. I hope a strong action will not delay any further. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

All of that seems like fair comment to me. They're attacking sources, and any comment they've made in these edits that is directed to another editor is limited to criticism of their choice of sources. I'm not going to act on this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think "You're showing your ignorance again." is "fair comment", or that an editor's action can be described as "griping", especially in an area with discretionary sanctions and ongoing conflicts between editors, then you are part of the problem, and I think other admins should state their opinion on this as well! Debresser (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Damnit Ivan. I count nine PAs in that one single diff. How are you possibly saying any of these nine comments are "fair"???

1. You're showing your ignorance again.
2. your absurd POV
3. Why aren't you capable of reading sources?
4. I don't know why you bother continuing to reply in reality-based encyclopaedia.
5. This fantasy project of yours will not gain traction here.
6. This project is built on the use of reliable sources, not the strenuousness of your denialism.
7. It will not be necessary for you to comment further.
8. Your quotation of this document is specious misinterpretation, which is either wilful or incompetent, and I am not inclined to listen further to your griping.
9. The extract you have quoted nails the final nail in the coffin of your ideology.

That's all from one comment! How are these anything other than ad hominem attacks? You should adjust your idea of civility looks like. This is not civil.

Frankly, the fact that more PAs were made while a proposal to warn for PAs was ongoing (with near unanimous consensus) makes me want to pull my support for my own warning proposal and support a TBAN instead. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, the moderating admin Girth Summit found it uncivil. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"Why aren't you capable of reading sources?" is about as personal and uncivil as it gets... Drmies (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from GPinkerton about this comment. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think all the hearing from them you'll get is down at the bottom of this page. As for the list of ad hominems above, I interpreted all of them as directed at an editor who was selectively choosing and serially misrepresenting sources, as pointed out by several editors on that talk page who were not GPinkerton, and in which case a comment like "why aren't you capable of reading sources", while not very nice, is valid. Anyway, Girth Summit seems to be perfectly capable of moderating that dispute and pushing block buttons if needed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• This comment is adapted from one made on my talk page.I'm mystified at the way this situation is developing. I thought these processes worked better than I am coming to realize. Why is my choice of language so fascinating when the issue at hand is just being ignored? Is the discussion intemperate? Yes. Am I the one that created this situation? No. Look at the months of furious argument that squabbles on long before I ever made an edit. Am I the only one more interested in improving the encyclopaedia's coverage of the subject than this comedy of manners? Hopefully not. Am I unique in making accusations of bias and agenda pushing? Not a bit. I invite, nay, beg, editors to ignore for now this superficial (and partly confected) issue of courtesy and examine the real torrent of problematic editing which has been running in spate below the recriminatory rhetoric. If I am to be blocked for disruptive editing (viz. imncivility), an idea I am saddened even to have to defend myself against, how would Wikipedia be served by allowing other parties to this dispute continue editing? As was my original point in raising this whole issue here weeks ago, they are not suited to building an encyclopaedia. Uncivil language is not excusable, but this isn't about me being impolite. Was anyone watching when عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) wrote:

• "This is scandalous attempt to convert Wikipedia into a Kurdish propaganda blog and completely adopting the Kurdish nationalist rhetoric. This text is cherry-picking and completely ignores ..."
• "Furthermore, this problematic, POV-screaming edit suggested by Pinkerton is designed to draw our attention away from the most important thing we are discussing right now, which is the name of the page/territory, and whether that is universal or not."
• "Since you seem to not read what you are adding ..."
• "This is another one of your comments that confirm that you don't read before jumping to conclusions."
• GPinkerton, if all the evidence we presented did not convinced you, nothing will, and that's your problem. Before you showed up here with your editing behavior editors here had a consensus that this term is used by some and disputed by others. Again, as usual, you make arguments and jump to conclusions before doing your homework.

Or when Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) said:

• "What GPinkerton has done throughout this entire article is to cherry pick sources that use kurdish nationalist names and narrative and she tries to disregard other sources. And in some cases she is not even following her sources in regards to history as seen above."

Apart from the reliable sources I have added and the wilfully tendentious misinterpretations and Ba'athist ideology regurgitated back in return, there is actually nothing but incivility interspersed with a catalogue of unanswered pleas for administrator intervention, which has been going on for months (years?) before I ever clapped eyes on it, and would certainly continue unabated, just as it has been allowed to do for over a decade, if I were blocked. Blocking me would make absolutely no difference, the disruption would just continue. Happily, Ivanvector has perceived that I am not alone in identifying the real problem. I urge anyone else to look at the contents of the discussion, at the two ANI reports on this page as I write, and at all the other fora this ridiculous war over a warzone has spilled over into. GPinkerton (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please everyone look at the Talk page in question for yourselves. The bottom line here is that user GPinkerton is presenting the Kurdish nationalistic narrative for this area of Syria as a fact, and as the ONLY fact. What we are trying to do is balance the article by presenting sourced content for other views on this. What I am providing there is pretty much quotes from French and British sources relevant to the era in question. What I get in response from this user is kind of "this X Kurdish author said this" and "this Y Kurdish institute mentioned that", and of course a ton of personal attacks (for the last ten days or more). On top of that, GPinkerton is mispresenting information, taking things out of context (e.g., leaving out important parts), or even adding/changing dates compared to what's mentioned in sources, one of which I explained in the edit here. This comment by Fiveby (who is not part of the dispute and has not edited the article in the near past) summarizes the situation: GPinkerton are you purposefully obtuse? If not you can look at the index from Tejel here under "Syrian Kurdistan, terminology" and view those pages, or Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria#Polity names and translations. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And here is another edit from Fiveby describing user GPinkerton's mission at the article: And 'Syrian Kurdistan' has other meanings, implied and explicit, notably Kurdish nationalism#Syria. From your added content, you are writing an article not about that portion of Kurdistan in Syria, but through bludgeoning and equivocal use of sources an article about a multi-ethnic region from the perspective of one ethnic group. The ambiguous title and scope of the article allows a selection of content from Kurdistan, Kurds in Syria, Kurdish Nationalism, Rojava, Syrian civil war, etc. to form the article implied by this title: a Kurdish only nation of Northern Syria. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support reluctantly. Concerned that a warning is too weak and sends the wrong message as this editor badly needs to cool it, at least in this area. But it also seems clear that this problem is a two-way street. Taking action against one side only would send a worse message. Hence my support. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

One last thing

I had another fresh look at the talk page today, at a revision before Valereee did a good job clerking and cleaning up old discussions. Going back a month or more, the talk page basically looks like a long, repeating pattern of comments exactly like the two above from GPinkerton and عمرو بن كلثوم (Amr ibn Kulthoum): deeply personalized partisan sniping over a real-world ethnic/cultural conflict, and little to do really with constructing an article. Other editors have occasionally responded in kind but it's just these two who have been doing basically nothing but this the whole time they've been editing that talk page. GPinkerton's first edit on that talk page was on 17 November (a pure personal attack), while Amr ibn Kulthoum's disruptive sniping goes back much further, way back to 28 July (also a personal attack). I have three non-exclusive proposals which some editors will find extreme, but the goal here is to get the talk page back to a state where editors can discuss the content free of this partisanship.

1. GPinkerton and عمرو بن كلثوم (Amr ibn Kulthoum) are partially blocked from editing Syrian Kurdistan and its talk page for three months, to give other editors time to resolve open discussions.
2. GPinkerton and عمرو بن كلثوم (Amr ibn Kulthoum) are banned from interacting with each other anywhere on Wikipedia, indefinitely.
3. GPinkerton is formally banned from publishing any comment that any editor reasonably interprets as a personal attack. (Yes, I do know WP:NPA is policy, but this formal ban would be logged at WP:EDR and make it less up to interpretation as to whether any such comment compels admin action, as we saw yesterday. I also know "civility parole" is a discredited approach; I hope this is not that.)

Thoughts? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• The asymmetry of this should be slanted to other way in my view. I don't see why the heavier sanction should fall on me. I have done more to improve the Syrian Kurdistan article than has been done in some time, and have never once touched the subject before. My first contribution to the talk page came long after the futility of interaction became apparent after exhausting the possibilities of rational debate at WP:RSN and WP:FTN (I think it was) and after the first ANI report about the whole issue. In addition, the problem with Amr clearly runs deeper. After numerous sanctions in the past and a catalogue of edits to pages relating to wider (and even narrower) Middle East geopolitical topics which display exactly the type of behaviour in other issues. And indeed, yet another ANI report has now appeared that relates to the same issue but involves neither he nor me. (i.e. the one about Diyarbakir (only the largest city in (Turkish) Kurdistan ...)) GPinkerton (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I don't even agree that my actual edits have been partisan, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the talkpage. Unlike Amr (evidence catalogued in a section far below) and SupremeDeliciousness (evidence far above and who ought to not to go scot free give the history of ArbCom topic bans in this kind of area) I have not made tendentious edits to the article space and besides the partisan commentary no-one else has objected to anything I have done in terms of content. GPinkerton (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, especially measure 3, i.e. making it clear that this is not a facebook group where users roast each other and argue with the aim of winning and not to actually improve articles while keeping the NPOV. It would be refreshing not to expect a random guy online insulting you for entering a discussion! We all have our own POV, but this doesnt mean that what others think is "none sense", and that only we can understand sources. Im sure that I and the other editors will be able to reach a consensus and compromise if civility is restored and a constructive discussion can take place.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The comment above should be considered in light of the false declaration that "There are no historical record that puts the Kurdish inhabited regions of Syria within historical Kurdistan before the establishment of Syria." which is none other than the same conspiracy theory, refuted (and I mean refuted and not just denied) numerous times on the talkpage, that Syrian Kurdistan is a fiction created by post WWI immigrant Kurds from Turkey, a nonsense invented by the national socialist Ba'ath Party as part of its Arab Belt policy of ethnic cleansing in that very territory and cooked up in order to deny the legitimacy of non-Arab citizenship in what was later renamed the Syrian Arab Republic. Naturally the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary thought otherwise in the drafting of their definition of "Kurdistan" in their recent third edition, which defined Kurdistan as region split between four states, including Syria. Wikipedia needs to treat this kind of editing in the same way Holocaust denial is treated. GPinkerton (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me Ivanvector. First, this discussion is not about me, it's about GPinkerton's behavior across a wide range of articles and topics. Second, you had to go back four months to see something that looks like a personal attack from me side against a recently-blocked edit warring user, that has been insulting me and others (recent examples: here, here, here, here, here and here, and here, here.) for months without any any action, with currently three WP:ANEW open cases against them, here, here and here and waiting for ANY admin attention for more than TWO weeks. On top of that a fourth was archived for without admin action. Here is the edit you linked that you describe as a personal attack: ::Konli17, What does an Erdoganist/Assadist conspiracy theory have to do with Kurdish immigration to Syria in the 1920's? Obviously, you fail to argue with the sourced content, some of these sources are from the mid 20th century, long before Assad, and half a century before Erdogan. The content is well sourced, and well known by the way. If you don't like it, that's your problem, but then you can stay away from the topic. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please go read the cases against Konki17 before you respond to this. I wonder how my comment above can be considered even close to the level of GPinkerton's or (Konli17's) behavior! That's unfair. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The user's name is Konli17, and I did read all of those discussions you forumshopped, long before I wrote this section. It's always about someone else's behaviour with you two, isn't it? And the diff I picked above was your first in a very long line of disruptive personal attacks on just that one talk page. I don't feel the need to subject anyone reading this far down with another laundry list of misdeeds. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "you forumshopped"? All three cases were opened by other editors, while mine (a fourth one) was archived without action. In the three open cases mentioned above, there is at least seven users commenting about the disruptive behavior and edit-warring of Konli17. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with GPinkerton. Amr's WP:GAME approach to talk page discussions alone ought to invite stronger sanction, let alone the rest of it. Konli17 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving to close with whatever sanction that is imposed. Plenty of time has been given for voting and this discussion is way too long over one person. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• I still feel that stronger measures should be taken against GPinkerton, who was again blocked today...! After that is said, I agree with #1 and #3, but disagree with #2, or at least it should be limited to the same 3 months as #1, otherwise they could never go back to editing that same article, which is not what we want here. Add to this that in general I see no use in interaction bans, especially after a 3-month hiatus. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, GPinkerton is requesting an unblock. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

So? By the way, {{nac}} stands for "non-admin closure". Is that what you had in mind? Debresser (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, meant {{nacmt}} (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 19:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 3. Both editors apparently need to WP:COOL and this civility problem is proving more intractable than lots of contributors previously thought. (Non-administrator comment) Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 3 - this has to come to an end one way or another. Worth noting GPinkerton has two active threads on the subject on WP:AN, including one freshly started; regardless of the original merit it's become badgering. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 3 Let's wait to see if an interaction ban is necessary, they're a last resort. —valereee (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

BLP violation?

I don't know where to post this. I was honestly hoping @GPinkerton: had changed. But they just made a comment in which they attack Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (a living person), calling him a "megalomaniac". (Their comment can also be interpreted to mean they are attacking the Prophet Muhammad.) This is not the first time they have either smeared living Muslims or maligned made negative comments about the entire Islamic faith ("a religion dreamt up in late antiquity"). While I support everyone's right to criticize Islam, I don't think doing so in the middle of heated discussions is WP:CIVIL. And this just days after they were blocked by valereee (later unblocked by Girth Summit) for talk page misconduct.VR _talk 02:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, interpreting the calling of an avowed dictator a megalomaniac (a well-earned characterization for man who built himself a new 1,000-room palace to live in because his existing palaces were insufficiently grand and who has annexed the administration of the very Topkapi Palace to the Office of the Presidency) as attacking the Prophet Muhammad is perverse and silly. This is not the first time you have either cried wolf on this matter or sought to have action taken against me without grounds. GPinkerton (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You just confirmed your attack on a living person. Stop digging.VR _talk 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, This is not the first time they have either smeared living Muslims or maligned the entire Islamic faith. You are criticizing me for BLP violation and yet you are casting unfounded aspersions like that baseless allegation! Danger of hypocrisy ... GPinkerton (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, This is not the first time they have either smeared living Muslims or made negative comments about the entire Islamic faith. You are criticizing me for BLP violation and yet you are casting unfounded aspersions like that baseless allegation! Danger of hypocrisy ... GPinkerton (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with Vice regent, GPinkerton is still behaving the same. Below are some examples from yesterday:

• Here: ridiculous misinterpretation that it proves the Ba'athist lie
• here: You appear to be labouring under the false impression the wall of text you have posted, and malicious lie and it is unfortunate that you persist in repeating it. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  عمرو بن كلثوم, is unfortunate that you persist in repeating it and it is a Ba'athist lie. You should read harder if you think that's wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  عمرو بن كلثوم, It would be better had you not misrepresented my comments and edited them (a fact betrayed by the now-incoherent grammar). What I in fact said is: The idea Kurds are not native to Syria is malicious lie and it is unfortunate that you persist in repeating it as though it could be countenanced as anything more than ahistorical propaganda. As you can see, there is nothing incorrect in this assessment. GPinkerton (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton No, I haven't edited anything, I just copied and pasted the parts from your separate comments available for everyone to see for themselves in the provided links. You obviously have a strong POV on controversial topics and that shapes your editing and makes you aggressive. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, I sense hypocrisy GPinkerton (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• When I look up "megalomania" in the dictionary, Erdogan is used as an example [48]: "Following Turkey’s hundred-year sleep, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in full megalomania bids to restore a supercharged Ottoman Empire...", quoting National Review. I put "erdogan" "megalomania" in Google News and see RSes from around the world similarly using the term to describe him. Not a BLP violation. (No comment on the Syrian Kurdistan conduct concerns, now that I am involved in the content dispute there.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: Seeing that much prejudice in the topic, I utterly have no intention to get into it, but I'm kind of puzzled this is coming out of an admin you. Please refer to WP:RSPSOURCES for the consensus on National Review. It's particularly notorious in the scope of BLP that it was explicitly stated. Consensus synopsis reads: There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. I tried to follow your research methodology to find other RSes to no avail, accounting for The Washington Post's false positive where the occurrences of the two words are irrelevant, only found things like Bangor Daily news, Israel Hayom, Asharq al Awsat. Correct me if I'm wrong. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    Assem Khidhr, "The Megalomania of Erdoğan the Magnificent" - HuffPost. "Turkey’s worsening crisis is due to Erdogan’s megalomania, not Trump’s bullying, but Turks won't see it that way" - Times of Israel' It's mystifying why you'd claim Asharq al Awsat is "irrelevant"! GPinkerton (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    @GPinkerton: I'd encourage you to pay a visit to WP:RSPSOURCES before citing a source as supposedly reliable. This is the least we can do in recognition of consensus on the site:

    • The first article you're providing here is from Huffpost contributors. Believe it or not, it's deemed generally unreliable on the list according to an overwhelming 18 threads. See WP:HUFFPOST and the two rows underneath (see, there's even a dedicated shortcut for that).
    • The second source is Times of Israel. While not on the list (which is enough to exclude it as a RS for such contentious claim), you can find a relevant discussion here. There were some valid grounds for unreliability. For example, Pluto2012 pointed out that it was created and is founded by Seth Klarman who is also the founder (and donator) of the Israel Project, a pro-Israel media advocacy group. Oncenawhile described the founder's statement: it is clear to me that anti-Zionism is simply the newest form of anti-Semitism. When the Jewish State is singled out above all others for criticism, such as it is at the United Nations, this is anti-Semitism as deeply biased and frankly ridiculous.

    Finally, I was ascribing irrelevancy to the occurence of both words within The Washington Post article, meaning that megalomania was mentioned in another irrelevant place in the artice than where Erdogan name is mentioned, hence being a false positive. What I indeed thought of Asharq al-awsat, Israel Hayom, etc. is unreliability, especially when it comes to politically sensitive comments. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Assem Khidhr: (I'm not an admin.) I'm not sure why the WaPo articles are false positives or why you seem to be dismissing Israel Hayom or Asharq al Awsat. I guess I'll dispense with the links from Haaretz, JPost, Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, Kathimerini... but here are some others:

    • World Affairs — "Indeed, many voters may seize on the corruption charges as credible in light of Erdogan’s near megalomania for building." [49]
    • Der Spiegel — "The protests against the destruction of Gezi Park showed that Turkish civil society is no longer willing to give unquestioning backing to the megalomania of its government." [50]
    • The Nation — Interviewer: "Erdogan seems to suffer some serious case of megalomania..." Interviewee: "He is a megalomaniac." [51]
    • Federal Academy for Security Policy — "...after Erdogan showed clear signs of megalomania and authoritarianism..." [52]
    • Politico — "...how to deal with Erdogan: censure him publicly, counsel the man privately or play to his megalomania." [53] Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Levivich: Thanks for correcting that, I probably thought so due to the merge we discussed on your talk page, seemed a bit bold for a non-admin to modify ANI threads structure, at least to me. Now it'd become redundant if I referred you to consensus on sources like The Nation. It is also likely that you'd end up being not sure of my attempt to explain the differences between megalomania for building, megalomania of its government, or even play to his megalomania and that megalomaniac believes to be God's greatest prophet. I'd therefore leave that interpretation to readers, but I'd just draw attention to the fact that such comment comes at the same time as an active nearly consensual proposal for civility editing ristriction, a partial block, and a serious warning of incivility from multiple admins. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• There's far too much nonsense on this noticeboard as it is, but we had better not start circling the wagons in defense of a brutal dictator. I recommend shutting this subthread down with a boomerang week-long block on the OP. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. GPinkerton (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It should be noted this whole ANI thread was begun as a result of the OP edit warring in a pro-Erdogan news source on Murder of Samuel Paty, an issue in which Erdogan has heavily involved himself, and that that source was purporting to be authoritative for events in Turkish-occupied Syrian Kurdistan ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. GPinkerton did not smear a living Muslim. Fake accusations like "interpreted to mean they are attacking the Prophet Muhammad" should not just be thrown around like they have been by VR here. Barca (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Indefed

I indefed GPinkerton after I saw they reopened WP:AN#Intractable problem still unaddressed and unabated; administrator action deficient for a third time, quickly perused their talk page, and saw an unblock request that dramatically failed WP:GAB#Talk about yourself, not others. This block was done in my personal capacity and was not done as part of this conversation. Any admin can lift the block if they have a good faith reason to believe that GPinkerton will no longer be disruptive. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Good block. WP:NOTHERE was already waved at GPinkerton by Ealdgyth and Guy macon after he failed to accept their benevolent advice. Now that I've also come to know about WP:RGW policy, I can see, in hindsight, how great of a mistake that I didn't quote it any earlier in my report. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have declined another (or the same?) overlong confrontative unblock request and endorse the block. Sandstein 20:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have to say I agree, and endorse the block. I don't think it solves any of the related issues raised above necessarily, but as Assem Khidhr pointed out, GPinkerton has had the threat of a block over their head for several days now, and their response to that has been to keep digging. At some point WP:NOTTHERAPY, and we really passed that a long time ago; the only reason GPinkerton wasn't blocked earlier is because other users are also being disruptive, but that's not a situation we can continue to tolerate. (WP:NOTTHEM also applies here) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• I proposed an indefinite block above, and the only thing that surprises me is that it took so long for other editors/admins to reach the same conclusion I did long ago. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This user is deleting my comments on a Talk page, and possibly spamming.

• Jargo Nautilus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jargo Nautilus has been deleting my comments (twice) on a Talk page. And he is flooding the Talk page, with personal attacks, making it very hard to talk. He has made at least 36 edits on that Talk page since the first deletion (about 15 hours ago). I think he is spamming, or vandalising the Talk page experience.
This is the first time he deleted my comment. The reason he gave in the edit summary was Removed defamation and reference to my user account without hyperlink.
Does seem to refuse to listen to different point of views and have a real discussion mean defamation??? I was just stating my view avoiding to use any bad word. He was constantly personal attacking the video maker mentioned in the Talk page (a felon, a fugitive and a fraud --see here), but not really discussing the issue he brought up.
Even if my words were too harsh for him, I don't think he has the right to delete my comment.
Then I found his action of deletion, and I put evidence of his crime (in this link, you can see evidence he was deleting other users comments too, in the section Someone is deleting others' replies and messing up this Talk page) in a new section on that Talk page.
But later, that whole section was deleted by him. This is the second deletion.

I haven't made any article changes recently. All the deletions I mentioned happend in the Talk page. I hope his vandalism can be stopped. --In wkpd (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I only deleted comments that referenced me personally without a hyperlink, or comments that were replies to my own comments which I had deleted. The initial set of comments that I deleted were already collapsed within a "soap" template, so they weren't visible in the first place. I deleted that section of comments since I was the one who started the section. In fact, on that note, I will mention that I actually started the section as an independent section with an independent header, though another user, without my permission, moved the section into a subheading under another heading. I never intended for the section to be a subheading under a different header. There has been a double standard regarding other new sections that other new users have launched. I'm not sure why the decision was made to move my section specifically under the other header. In any case, the original intention of my section was tainted when it was moved under the other heading. The discussion was also clearly going nowhere, so I terminated it early on. In fact, there were not many comments in the section, when compared to the numerous other sections that have been launched roughly at the same time. Meanwhile, regarding the deletion of comments that reference my username without a hyperlink, the reason for doing this was that I wasn't actually able to see the comments in my notifications. When users hyperlink your own username, you typically get "pinged". I was not pinged when In wkpd started talking about me behind my back. When I came across the offending comment, I deleted it, though I also left a comment alongside the edit stating my reason for the removal of the offending comment. Furthermore, as other users on the page have stated, we should avoid talking about other users and should discuss the topics at hand. So, I think I did the right thing in this regard since I chose not to carry on with the irrelevant discussion about myself. After this occurred, In wkpd posted an entirely new section where he again started discussing my username, though this time, he did actually ping me. I ended up deleting this section but then transferred it to my own user page, in order to continue the discussion outside of Talk:Taiwan, since other editors have requested that we do not discuss topics that are irrelevant to the primary discussion that has been going on. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, I do admit that I have been making a lot of edits, though I would not necessarily call it spam. I have a habit of writing a lot of brief comments in quick succession, i.e., like a thread. This is just a bad habit of mine, however, it's also caused by the fact that my internet connection is not so good, so I worry about whether my edits will be saved if I sit there writing for more than twenty minutes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thirdly, yes, I was "personally attacking" the videomaker, true. However, given that he was being used as an author of a source on the page, and, in fact, the one that sparked this entire 15,000-word discussion, I have been trying to discuss the veracity of both the source and of the author himself. Here, I have actually found a pretty good reaction video to Nathan Rich's video. Maybe you guys here don't care, but I personally thought it was relatively comprehensive. It's nearly half-an-hour long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvcCQPhbBmM Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I could probably make a couple of points, but I will leave it at this for now. I don't wish harm unto anybody. I'm just trying to break down the facts here. I'm also trying to get to the bottom of this Nathan Rich guy. As far as I can tell, he's a propagandist of some kind, or a "grifter". I don't know much about his background, though I have encountered him quite a while ago, so he's not exactly someone new to me. On the other hand, it seems that he might be new to In wkpd? I really don't know. Anyway, my point is, don't just trust the things people say at face value... You've got to actually investigate these things. Try to think objectively and independently and critically. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, these "personal attacks" that In wkpd is referring to were mostly targeted towards Nathan Rich. I honestly don't have the energy to personally attack any of the users (Nathan Rich is not a user but rather an author who was cited in a source). I've had disagreements with several of the users though I would not call these "attacks". Generally speaking, I've been relatively civil, and I've been providing quite a lot of analysis of the topic that we've been discussing -- we've been discussing Taiwan's political status, as well as some other topics that are related to this. None of this analysis is backed up by sources, though, with that being said, no one else has really been backing up their analyses by sources either, for the most part. And it's already been established that Nathan Rich's YouTube video does not constitute a reliable source. So, overall, when In wkpd says "Jargo Nautilus has been making a lot of personal attacks", it should be clarified that these attacks have been generally targeted towards someone who is not actually a user on the talk page. As such, these attacks do not really qualify as "ad hominems" or whatever you'd like to call them. They're directed towards the author of a source that was cited. I've been accusing the author of having nefarious motivations and a criminal record. I'm not sure if this goes against policy or what, but I think it is important that we don't give extremists a platform? Honestly, correct me if I'm wrong here; maybe you're allowed to post sources that were published by extremists? I know that a Wikipedia page about "The Donald" (Donald Trump's alt-right fanbase) exists. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, so, the comment that In wkpd was referring to, regarding the lack of a hyperlink, was this one: "They might be trying to protect Wikipedia in the free world from the invasion of the "unfree world". Well, that was kind of a joke. Frankly speaking, they might really be thinking this is a common sense, and mainland Chinese's common sense doesn't count, because their media don't have free of speech. That's just one of my speculation, it's better to let them explain themselves. But OTOH, I think their action might already be abusing Wikipedia as a tool to spread their idea, a really common idea in WP though, see Systemic bias # The "average Wikipedian". Not 100% sure though, I'm still learning. There're also users like Jargo Nautilus who started the section Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a felon, a fugitive and a fraud?, and seem to refuse to listen to different point of views and have a real discussion." Essentially, there was more to the comment than just "refuses to listen to other POVs". He was accusing me of being some kind of delusional freedom fighter. Also, he was accusing me of believing that mainland Chinese people's opinions don't matter. FYI, I myself am ethnic-Chinese, although I was born in Australia. -snip- What I'm trying to say here is that I'm not some guy who believes mainland Chinese people's opinions don't matter. In fact, I am opposed to the Chinese government, which I view as totalitarian, though this primarily stems from my political affiliation with the Anarcho-Communist movement, and doesn't have anything to do with racism of some kind. I do not believe that the Chinese government represents the majority of Chinese people. Instead, it represents a minority of oligarchs within China who are only interested in attaining power for themselves. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, it's 3:26 AM where I live, currently. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"not really discussing the issue he brought up" - What exactly do you (In wkpd) mean by this? You do realise that I've written two entire essays explaining my view of the Taiwanese political situation? Additionally, I've been replying to almost every message that has been addressed to me or is a reply to one of my previous comments. I've been conversing with several people at the same time, which is part of the reason why I've made so many edits. However, it must be said that this debate has been stretched thin across multiple sections. I've been trying to keep the discussion pinned down to a single place. Also, I cited an article from Taiwan News explaining exactly how Nathan Rich qualifies as a "felon". https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3941420 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Batman. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I was recieveing ping after ping of "Jargo Nautilus has edited WP:ANI." (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 16:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is your text small? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

After your wall of text it was necessary to conserve space in every way possible. EEng 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to try and get some sleep now. In all honesty, I've got no idea why In wkpd cares about this issue so much. It literally has nothing to do with him, as I've explained. He himself says that he only recently just started reading up on the political status of Taiwan and the relations between Taiwan, China and America. He's also launched far more attacks -- and vicious ones too -- against me than I have against him. Like, honestly dude (In wkpd), I don't care about you. It's not a crime that I don't care. It's just a fact. I've got a lot of stuff going on right now and you're not very high up on my list of priorities. Anyway, peace. I'm going to sleep. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jargo Nautilus, without reading too much into the content of the conflict, your removal of other people's comments on a talk page is against talk page guidelines, especially if they've been already replied to. You can ask other users to strike out their comments, but you are not allowed to remove them yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, makes sense. But what about comments that have been collapsed in a soap template? Also, the guy who did that didn't really give a super good reason (if any?) for doing so. Also, what do the rules say about moving sections of conversations around the talk page and placing them under other headings? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the "soap" accusation against me could easily apply to any of the other editors there. It's a mess... I've been trying to shut down the conversation from the beginning to no avail. That's why I've been questioning the legitimacy of the original source that was cited, which sparked this entire conversation. I will admit that I've gone off the rails at times, though this has generally been a response to others doing the same. In wkpd himself wrote like three or four essays within the space of a day. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This ANI filing is a complaint by User:In wkpd about removal of their comments on Talk:Taiwan by User:Jargo Nautilus. An example is in this diff. I suggest that Jargo is risking a block if they do this again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify what happened here, I moved the messages over to my own talk page so that we could continue the conversation there instead. I left a brief message explaining what happened. Though, admittedly, I might have failed to ping In wkpd. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=next&oldid=991116073

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJargo_Nautilus&type=revision&diff=991116125&oldid=991040271

Here's another relevant edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATaiwan&type=revision&diff=991037758&oldid=991036355 This guy thinks I'm far-right, lmao. I'm an anarchist. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo, . Your constant posting, posting, posting, longer and longer, is making it impossible for administrators to be able to sort through it and help you, and the fact you're posting what results in a truly massive wall of text - I have a fairly large monitor, and it almost completely fills the screen - especially without allowing the other party to respond is bludgeoning. You really should have posted a much more consise explanation of your position in the first place; as it is now, go and have a cup of tea and wait for discussion to proceed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Nautilus" is my given name, "Jargo" is my surname. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, focusing on issues like these will not due you any good, please defend yourself in a clean and precise manner if you want to prevent being blocked. I would suggest taking a wiki-break from editing while reading up on some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to lock the page Talk:Taiwan temporarily? The entire talk page is an absolute mess, with random people coming in from all over the place trying to make radical changes to the long-held consensuses of the article. These discussions were initially sparked by a YouTube video that was made about Taiwan by an American YouTuber based in China that went relatively viral; in the video, he suggested that Taiwan's status be changed from "country" to "part of China". As a result of this video, one user vandalised the page. Another user reverted this. Then, discussions were opened up about the political status of Taiwan, and this derailed when In wkpd decided to cite the aforementioned video in order to "start a conversation". A second user came along and opened up a new section specifically discussing this YouTube video and the points made within it. I made early attempts to bring the entire conversation to a halt, though my objections were ignored. I then made an entire section dedicated to criticising the YouTuber who made the video, and this section ended up being censored through a "soap" and "notforum" template. It must be said, though, that this entire time, I did not make edits to the article itself, and my activities were limited to the talk page. Overall, this entire situation is extremely messy and I think it should be scrutinised more closely. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, the talk page seems fine. Every talkpage is open for anyone to comment on an issue or to raise an issue. However, this is not the issue at hand and I will not be commenting on this further. Please focus on how you can improve your behavior on Wikipedia. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - I did not appreciate other users referencing my user account in order to make an example out of me. What can I do in the future in order to deal with this problem, which is clearly aggressive behaviour? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, while I didn't read your rebuttal, you can cite WP:AGF. However, I find this unlikely, you do not WP:OWN talkpages or mainspace pages. Please be weary of this. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797Alright, that makes sense. In any case, I do think the comment left by In wkpd amounted to an ad hominem attack, though perhaps not so specifically against me since he merely made a general statement "People here refuse to listen to the opinions of others...", and then cited me as the one specific example of "people". The next time something like this happens, perhaps to a more severe degree, I will take it to the ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, do you understand what you need to do to improve? I am asking this so we can close this very long discussion. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 19:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - I'm going to study hard and lie low. The only way to fight the system is to beat it at its own game. Thanks for the useful conversation. Sorry for dragging it out so long. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - I am also going to take up meditation again. This stuff majorly stresses me out. No idea how you guys can do it on a daily basis. Props to you all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, Okay, now I am worried about you saying "beat it at its own game." Could you please elaborate on what you mean about this? (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 19:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - Basically, I'm not exactly an idiot, but I'm really hot-headed and do/say a lot of stupid spur-of-the-moment things. That's where the meditation comes in. This entire situation was basically just bait, which I fell for relatively easily. Also, other users on the talk page had malicious intentions, though they were a lot more cunning with how they conducted themselves. I'm not saying I intend to break the rules. Rather, I intend to outsmart my opponents. Which is why I need to study. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, EdJohnston is completely correct. What you did here is unacceptable, and copying it to your talk page or whatever just makes it worse (since no attribution is given). This also is not acceptable. Your walls of text are awful, your diversions irritating ("This guy thinks I'm far-right, lmao. I'm an anarchist."--we don't care). I have reverted your most recent contributions to that talk page, because they contain insults and personal attacks and add nothing to any discussion on the topic. So here is my warning: if you make another personal attack on that talk page, remove someone else's comment, or post material that does not directly pertain to a discussion on article improvement, I'll gladly block you from the article and its talk page. And in general, it seems to me that you are already on very thin ice here; any further infractions or examples of incivility are likely to lead to a block. And in the spirit of this edit (or this rather ironic correction), I don't care if you say "yes sir" or "yes ma'am", but I strongly urge you to be economical, whatever you want to say. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope this us in the right place. Jargo Nautilus, I think other editors should be thought of as "collaborators", not "opponents". 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You've put this comment in a slightly weird spot. I will say, I'm generally open to the idea of collaboration with other users. The only issue that I am unwilling to reach compromises on is the question of Taiwan's political status. Regarding most other issues, I usually have more varied views towards them. This may not be of note to you, though I personally think it's worth mentioning -- I actually discovered my Taiwanese ancestry directly as a result of reading the "Taiwan" article on Wikipedia. I grew up as a member of the Taiwanese diaspora in Australia, though I did not know about my heritage until a few years ago. -- My reason for opposing the notion that Taiwan is "part of the People's Republic of China" is that I believe, based on my own life experiences, that the Chinese government has been actively funding a campaign for at least the past twenty or so years to completely wipe Taiwan off of the map. If China succeeds at this goal, then there will probably be countless other members of the Taiwanese diaspora like myself who will lose their connections to their heritage. I won't allow the Chinese government to erase my heritage and my identity. -- Regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean no attribution was given? In the edit history? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, please familiarise yourself with copying within Wikipedia, where [a]t minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page.

I moved the messages over to my own talk page so that we could continue the conversation there instead. That's not how it works on here. You can reproduce the text from other editors elsewhere, but you can't remove it per talk page guidelines again (unless you have their permission). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I did leave a message afterwards as an edit, though I forgot to write a comment in the edit summary. I said that I had migrated the conversation over to my user page. In any case, I won't do it again. Thanks for clarifying this information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear: leaving a message afterwards is not sufficient. Unless it's your own user talk page, do not remove or refactor content other editors have placed on talk pages. Period. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bushranger Noted. Under what conditions can I add a "notforum" template over comments that are off-topic? Do I need to be an admin in order to do this? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In all seriousness, if you have to ask then you don't have enough experience to be doing that. EEng 00:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I know how to do it... I just wasn't sure whether I had permission to. Another user placed my comments into a "notforum" template, which is why I deleted the entire segment of comments encased within the template. The reason cited for putting my comments in a "notforum" template was "far-right nonsense", a claim which wasn't supported by any evidence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday, I asked JN to read WP:NOTFORUM here, but it is evident there is no abatement of the disruption on the non-Nathan Rich talk page material. As Drmies suggested as an option, I would rather JN be at once partially blocked from both Taiwan and Talk:Taiwan for some time. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There were multiple discussions going on that could fall under the definition of "notforum". And what do you mean by "abatement"? Also, I request that I don't be blocked. I don't plan on adding any additional comments, though I may want to remove or edit some of my pre-existing comments. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Abatement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, there are limitations on removing/editing even your own comments if they've been replied to. You can find guidance at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You shouldn't remove a comment that has received a reply, and you should edit in specific ways -- for instance, striking through what you want to remove, underlining what you're adding. —valereee (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Noted. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I wanna take a break from Wikipedia for a couple of days, but I have to make sure this discussion is not closed. Is there anything I need to do? In wkpd (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd I just want to point out that this entire dispute started with an ad hominem attack which you directed against me. You said I "might be trying to protect Wikipedia in the free world from the invasion of the "unfree world"" among other things. You specifically referenced my user account (despite the fact that multiple other editors had been defending the status quo of the Taiwan article, not just me), so I regard that as an ad hominem attack against me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are you here again? I'm not talking to you. Saying the same thing over and over again is very annoying and will not make you more convincing. Now I see you're quite concerned about that "unfree" sentence. There's completely no problem with what I have said. The only person that is making personal attacks is you, and you have been constantly doing so. I'll soon make a rather comprehensive reply, today or tomorrow, covering your concerns about this issue, so wait for that, OK? And please don't give me any reply until then. Please don't distract me. --In wkpd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an arbitration case that is literally about me. Why shouldn't I be here?Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus: Because I wasn't talking to you or saying anything about you.

You had already made your points, and should wait for the others (me) to make a reply. Not being here when the conversation is not about you will not do you any harm, but will help keeping the layout clear and reduce disturbance to administrators, as you should've noticed here. This is not a forum or a live chat. Think about the option of not replying.

As to my coming reply, it's been taking a lot of time. But you'll see it soon. Thanks in advance for your patience. And please note that I'm not here to push you to any punishment. I genuinely hope you can behave well. --In wkpd (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd Your Wikipedia account is five years old but you only started editing last week in order to debate Taiwan's political status. Call me crazy, but that comes off as just rather bizarre, to me. In any case, if you want to debate that topic, you are simply wrong to suggest that Taiwan is currently part of the People's Republic of China (which, by the way, is something that you actually said in the talk page). However, you are correct in that Taiwan is not, strictly speaking, a country, although it strongly resembles one. In any case, I've actually known about Nathan Rich for quite some time... At least a year, I'd say. I've always known him to be a pro-CCP propagandist, though this is the first time I've heard him talk about Taiwan. Sure, he's made some sort-of-decent points (though, I did find a rebuttal video that was quite comprehensive). However, his motives are nefarious... He doesn't actually care about the issue of Taiwan's political status personally. He's an internet celebrity. He's just doing this for money... Endangering the lives of millions of people... for money. Regards -- Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm. --In wkpd (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I'm an anarchist, so I'm neither pro-China nor pro-West. My views are anti-authoritarianism across the spectrum. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd, there's nothing you really can do. If someone thinks it's ready for closing, it'll be closed. Your availability isn't part of the equation, I'm afraid. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Winding up as the rare double WP:GRENADEing perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If I get it right, WP:GRENADE means I have not made a decent reply since I first posted here? Well, that's because Jargo Nautilus has made so many unnecessarily long replies, and if I reply to her, I can only make 1 reply each time, and I'm genuinely afraid that she will start making more again. So I didn't think it was a good idea. --In wkpd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I was thinking, it's good for everyone to take a break for some time. But, OK, I'll make a formal reply today or tomorrow. But it won't cover everything she has mentioned, which I think is unnecessary. Let me know if you think there's anything specific I should reply to. --In wkpd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd, I get that you're very new to Wikipedia, and I suspect you realize you've made a mistake. ANI is a terrible place for new editors, I'm afraid. If you're asking me for advice, what I'd advise is a mea culpa: "I'm sorry, I didn't know what I was getting myself into here. Can I back out of this, with apologies for wasting everyone's time?" No blaming anyone else, just an apology and a request to be excused. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I believe I've done nothing wrong. I'm just preparing a reply with more evidence to show JN's harmful behaviours. Not just deleting comments. She's making communication very difficult. --In wkpd (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"Nothing wrong". The first thing you did wrong was to bring up the YouTube video made by Nathan Rich. As an unreliable source, the video should have been completely disregarded as soon as it was initially posted on the talk page. The discussions about the video or inspired by the video should not have carried on for so long. Multiple other Wikipedians, not just myself, actually pointed out that the video was not a reliable source quite early on. You are in the wrong for bringing up an unreliable source, ignoring the complaints of other Wikipedians who pointed out that it was unreliable and then forcing the conversations surrounding the unreliable source to continue for several days. When I made complaints about the creator of the YouTube video, Nathan Rich, you and another Wikipedian censored my comments, describing the comment as "far-right nonsense", without providing any evidence of this allegation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Horse Eye's Back. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on this comment, Special:Diff/992275687 I believe at a minimum a topic ban for anything related to Taiwan, broadly construed, is neccessary. Their statement indicates they are unwilling to compromise on any issues related to Taiwan and feel they are here to right great wrongs. Slywriter (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Do you mean Jargo Nautilus is one of those who feel they are here to right great wrongs? I hope I didn't get you wrong. --In wkpd (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@In Wkpd: here's two pieces of free advice:

1. Just because you start a thread does not mean you need to reply to every single comment. The Diff is clear on whom I am speaking of. Though I suspect it has been lost in your Wall of Text (hats do nothing for mobile users)
2. Which brings me to Holy Wall of Text below this. When complaining that someone is not concise, you should try doubly hard to be concise. Present the Diffs. I assure you the community and admins know how to click through and do not need extensive quotes and excessive commentary.

Slywriter (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slywriter: I know that. But your speech seems to call people like me to be "here to right great wrongs", since I suggested that we change the current phrasing "Taiwan is a country" to something else. Anyway, if you don't want to make it clear, I have to speak for myself. A different opinion doesn't mean being unwilling to compromise. Instead, avoiding real discussions between different opinions does. It seems to me that Jargo Nautilus, who has probably made the most edits and typed the most text on that talk page, is one of those who are unwilling to compromise.

And I do apologize for my wall of text below. I forgot to add a new section. I think it's better now.

You got to understand, I can't just present the diffs just to show how she's not being concise. That way she'll just continue to do what she's doing, because AFAIK, she won't get punished just because not being concise. For the same reason, she'll just continue being uncivil. I think I might have to make a coherent article to show everyone, not just the Admins, what kind of behaviours she's had. And hopefully that will make her change her behaviours.

I understand nobody wants to read walls of text. But this is the most concise I can be.

Locking pages will certainly avoid conflicts. But why not have people be more civilized? It that a difficult task for WP? Is it difficult to have Wikipedians just be civil, and listen to others and reply on-point, and respect the rules? --In wkpd (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Replying to JN & Summary of her harmful behaviours

Firstly, some words to Jargo Nautilus

Firstly, some words to @Jargo Nautilus: Referring to you as "he" doesn't mean I'm assuming your gender (thanks to Drmies for pointing it out), it just means I'm using old-fashioned English, where "he" can represent one whose gender is not clear (example). And what do you mean by "bopomofo"? I'm not even sure whether you were trying to insult me, since I don't have a rich vocabulary of swear words. Most of your replies above are nonsense. I did not reply you because I was terrified by your rudeness (making walls of text).

Deleting comments

Jargo Nautilus has been modifying and deleting my comments (1, 2, 3), which is the reason I came to the AN/I. It seems she's been ignoring the guideline (Talk page guidelines # Editing others' comments).

But since Jargo Nautilus has been repeatedly (here and here) mentioning one of my comments (... "unfree world" ...) in this thread, and started to accuse me of conducting ad hominem attacks against her, I will give a reply to this issue.

For anyone who is interested, read inside the Collapse Template. In short, she might have mistaken my words.

More Details

My comment was literally responding to a third user Irtapil, under the section he had made asking why do people want to present a one sided story?. I don't know why she couldn't see the hyperlink and was quoting slightly out of context. My comment consisted of 2 paragraphs. The first paragraph which was deleted by her can be broken down into 3 parts. Part 1: A Joke @Irtapil: Their motivation? Well, this is a website everyone can edit. I don't know their motivation, and I don't think I need to know. Why do you need to know their motivation? Assume good faith (WP:GF). They might be trying to protect Wikipedia in the free world from the invasion of the "unfree world". Well, that was kind of a joke. I said I just told a joke. No idea why you would think I was saying "they" are a joke, thus defaming. The tone of the words is joking, if not taken out of context. The following part starting with "Frankly speaking", also suggests the preceding speech is not serious. If I were to defame anyone, why wouldn't I omit the last sentence (Well, that was kind of a joke.) and the preceding words (@Irtapil: Their motivation? ... Assume good faith (WP:GF).), and just make it look like a serious reply? If you did really have mistaken it. Your action is still questionable. Why didn't you leave Part 2 and Part 3 undeleted? It's very obvious that you just wanted to alter my comment because you didn't like it. Part 2: Frankly speaking... Frankly speaking, they might really be thinking this is a common sense, and mainland Chinese's common sense doesn't count, because their media don't have free of speech. That's just one of my speculation, it's better to let them explain themselves. But OTOH, I think their action might already be abusing Wikipedia as a tool to spread their idea, a really common idea in WP though, see Systemic bias # The "average Wikipedian". Not 100% sure though, I'm still learning. I think nothing is wrong about this part. Part 3: Mentioning Jargo Nautilus and other users There're also users like Jargo Nautilus who started the section Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a felon, a fugitive and a fraud?, and seem to refuse to listen to different point of views and have a real discussion. Nothing wrong again. And you're right Jargo Nautilus, I did mention other users. But I didn't say they're "freedom fighter" But most of their unpleasant replies can be ignored.

My whole comment was quite balanced, the 1st paragraph explaining to Irtapil's question and backing up what he had felt, and the 2nd one advocating "no need to talk about the motivation". But you completely changed my speech by deleting the 1st paragraph, making it look like I was opposing his idea. This is disgusting.
And look at that section now, half of the content is filled with your off-topic wall of text!
You said you will delete comments not pinging you in the edit summary?! You just create rules yourself, but not follow the rules? Ridiculous!
Editing others' comments directly is forbidden by the guideline.

Abusing the chat system

I have to point out Jargo Nautilus' harmful behaviours in the talk page as well as in this thread.

1. Bludgeoning, replying too much and too frequently, not letting others have time to reply. When another user points out a problem in her lengthy speech, she just pretends to discuss by making another lengthy speech.
2. Way too frequent queue jumping. She's been putting her reply at the top of the chat too often for no good reason. I think she has crossed the line.

Bludgeoning

Thanks to The Bushranger for mentioning bludgeoning. Yes, that's what I was trying to say by "possibly spamming", and that's also what I meant by "not really discussing". She was not listening to other people's points, but only making her own claims repeatedly. Even if what she said had been all facts, it was still not a discussion, because she was not responding to others' arguments. Her behaviour would potentially violate WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TALK#USE (Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject, Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.).

What she is supposed to do, imo, is to engage in discussions about how to improve the article, and try to make her points there, providing concise and convincing arguments with reliable sources. I believe that will take no more than a few sentences if she's replying to another user.
But what she's doing instead, is throwing tons of arguments, which may be true facts, but are irrelevant to what others are discussing, and will heavily mess up the talk page.
I don't know whether she is incapable of understanding what people are talking about, or just deliberately messing around.

Example 1: A whole section that shouldn't have existed

A good example would be this whole section (Something else that is important to point out) she made on the talk page starting with Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC.. This whole section should not have existed! It was about the history of sovereignty and the de facto political status of Taiwan, and whether Taiwan has been legally owned by ROC. But people were discussing the inconsistency between WP articles, the de jure status of Taiwan, and NPOV! See? That's how she's not discussing. Whether Taiwan has been legally owned by ROC might be related to the topic of the de jure status of Taiwan, but why didn't she join the related discussion instead of making a whole new section with a ton of text?

Example 2: 5k characters in 43 minutes, interacting with nobody else

She's been making replies too frequently. As I said in this thread, she has made at least 36 edits in 15 hours on that Talk page since the first deletion. Here is another example. In a period of 43 minutes (23:01 to 23:44), she's added 4600+ characers (excluding spaces) (or 5.4k+ characters including spaces), making 8 successive paragraphs without anyone else talking to her in between! And those 8 paragraphs arguing "Taiwan is not part of PRC" were off-topic. My point was, we shouldn't simply say "Taiwan is a country" as the first sentence. The thing she was talking about (whether Taiwan is a part of PRC) was just mentioned in my proposal, which did not emphasize on that issue, and explicitly claimed that they could change some of the wordings. If she didn't like the example, she could provide her version. The first thing was to make consensus on the talk page that we should not simply say "Taiwan is a country" as the first sentence. There's no reason to make so many paragraphs discussing a small thing, making it off-topic.

Example 3: Pretending to discuss by giving just another pointless lengthy speech

A good example would be the following conversation that you can find here. As we can tell from Matt Smith's reactions, Jargo Nautilus was not really replying, but rather pretending to be well-founded with walls of text, which disrupts the talk page. Taiwan and the ROC are not the same. The same thing would not have different histories (History of Taiwan vs History of the Republic of China). Currently, "Taiwan" is just an expedient common name of the ROC; end of story. They are actually two different entities. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Jargo Nautilus' wall of text The Republic of China was a different entity pre-1949 when compared to post-1949. On Wikipedia, this is actually the current consensus since there's clearly an article titled "Republic of China (1912–1949)". Taiwan (Republic of China) and the People's Republic of China were both successor states of the Republic of China (1912–1949); the country having effectively been split into two post-1949. The original Republic of China government fled in exile to Taiwan and took over the administration of that territory, though that doesn't necessarily indicate that Taiwan (Republic of China) is a direct continuation of the Republic of China (1912–1949). Nominally, it is, but realistically, it isn't, and it hasn't been for decades. The boundary between the Republic of China and the modern Taiwanese republic (that is nominally still called the "Republic of China") is very vague, though one could consider the country to have changed regimes in 1996 when the first direct presidential election was held (often, it is considered to have changed a few years earlier, back in 1987, when Martial Law was lifted by the dictator Chiang Ching-kuo). EDIT: Actually, the descriptor "original Republic of China government" is somewhat misleading. One cannot deny that Chiang Kai-shek's KMT-led ROC regime on Taiwan came under heavy scrutiny, especially from former politicians of the ROC who remained in PRC-ruled mainland China, with regard to exactly how "legitimate" it was, and whether it represented the country of China as a whole, or was merely a "clique" of a failed dictator more interested in preserving his own power than serving the people. EDIT2: Here's the first sentence of that article that I linked: "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as China is a historical sovereign state in East Asia that was based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." EDIT3: Here's an older version of that first sentence, since I noticed that it had been recently changed: "The Republic of China (ROC) was a sovereign state based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, the ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949. But Taiwan and the ROC are still two different entities, and that's why each has its own history. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Jargo Nautilus' wall of text There's some truth to your point here, but there are different definitions as to what "Taiwan" is. Taiwan is a single island, it's an archipelago (the main island plus minor surrounding islands) and it's a country. Those are the three main definitions of Taiwan here on Wikipedia. So, true, Taiwan the island is not the same thing as Taiwan the country... But Taiwan the country... is a country. "Taiwan" is an alternative name for the Republic of China. By that logic, Taiwan is the same thing as the Republic of China. Even if "Taiwan" is not the official name of the country which is known as the Republic of China, it's still a very commonly used name for the country, and even government officials and administrative bodies within Taiwan refer to the country with that name (alongside the official name). For Christ's sake, the Republic of China passport has "TAIWAN" smack bang in the middle of it. So, your argument is not that Taiwan and the Republic of China are different things... Instead, you are arguing that the already well-established practice of referring to the Republic of China as "Taiwan" was wrong from the beginning, should have never gained traction and should be done away with immediately. Unfortunately, there's a fat chance of that ever happening, since the majority of people around the world know the Republic of China as "Taiwan" these days. When people do come across the name "Republic of China", they often mistake this for the official name of mainland China's government; even Donald Trump made this mistake, I recall. So yeah... The Republic of China is Taiwan simply because that's what international society as a whole believes. So, you're not gonna win this argument. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Says the guy who failed to make clear his definition of "Taiwan" before making the "one and the same" assertion. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Abused queue jumping

Jargo Nautilus has been constantly putting her reply on the top (multiple indentations) with no good reason.
Examples: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.

Quoting from a related discussion I can find, this kind of behaviour should be done out of an honest good-faith desire to maintain clarity in a complex discussion involving many replies, but not out of a desire to get their voice at the top of the pile.
In my opinion, she's doing it to too much.

Constantly being uncivil

Evidence of being uncivil

1: that man is an absolute joke
2: Now, I know you're just salty because you lost your China job over some PowerPoint that you threw together in half an hour.
3: I honestly have no clue what this guy's schtick is..., It's seriously confusing, concerning and comical.
4: Also, did that bopomofo In wkpd just assume my gender? What makes him think I'm male?
5: Begone, communist shill!
6: Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a criminal, a fugitive and a fraud?
7: Nathan Rich is a felon.

Assuming bad faith, groundlessly

1: So many people here are just trying to strongarm some kind of agenda without listening to the facts.
2: However, many of the Wikipedians here who are pushing the notion that Taiwan isn't a country are doing so in bad faith...
3: ...In wkpd's Wikipedia activity so far has been rather suspicious., ...why is he trying so hard to hide his motivations?, ...not be an issue for him to divulge his intentions and the people whom he works for?
4: I have a feeling that Nathan's goonies are brigading this talk page right now.

Disruptively refactored my speech

In the last 24 hours, she has refactored 2 of my comments. But it seems she's just doing that at her own will, against me. She's not respecting Wikipedia:Refactoring, and she doesn't know what WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM mean, while she's putting them on the title of the Collapse Template.

The 1st one, disruptive refactoring with no respect to Wikipedia:Refactoring

Diff.
She's reducing the clarity and readability of that page, which violates Wikipedia:Refactoring.
And it seems JN has no idea what WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM mean, or maybe she was just too focused on removing things she doesn't like.

The 2nd one, kind of OK, but...

Diff.
This refactoring is kind of OK, because I myself have been planning to collapse that blue box. When I made that edit, I didn't know how to use a Collapse Template yet. If I did, I probably would have collapsed it.
Still, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM were unsuitable. And her edit summary was More nonsense. What makes you so special that you can make, essentially, an entire infobox to spout your nonsensical claims?.
I don't know why she would find useful information nonsense. Her edit summary, instead, is nonsense, belittling my efforts, and misrepresenting my intent.
I made that info box to let them know more about the history of that talk page, so that they would not fall into the same discussions that had happened before.
And I actually got a thank from user Davidbena after making that blue box.

@EdJohnston and Drmies:
There's more than just deleting comments. In general, I think she just doesn't respect the rules.
I'm looking for a solution here. Can I collapse her wall of text? Or do I report somewhere when I see her doing the same thing again?
She's been constantly not listening, not respectful (to the rules and other people), and uncivil.
She's repeating the same thing over and over and over again, messing around everywhere.
I'm very frustrated by her. And it's wasted me a lot of time.
I think her behaviour should be closely monitored from now on, until she has learned to respect the policies/guidelines.
Don't know if it's possible, but limiting her amount of edits seems to be a good solution.
I've tried talking to her, incuding earlier today in this thread, but it seems she just won't listen.

@HeartGlow30797, Tenryuu, CaradhrasAiguo, EEng, and Valereee:
Maybe you want to be notified of this progress.
--In wkpd (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It's nearly impossible to reply to this because I can only edit in source mode rather than in visual mode. I'm going to copy this over to a sandbox, reply there, and then copy-paste my responses over to here. In the meantime, toodle-oo. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Jargo Nautilus stop inserting your replies into In wkpd's text. That is basic talk page usage. How have you not learned that in two years and 2300 edits? —valereee (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• In wkpd, I can almost promise this is not going to end well for you. No one wants to read walls of text. If this as concise as you can be, you need to go practice that. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It was too difficult to reply to each comment in one go. I did this entire thing in one single edit. I'm not sure how to reply to this comment in one go. I already mentioned that previously when I said It's nearly impossible to reply to this. My apologies if this page now looks like a mess. I'll see if I can improve my reply. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It was nearly impossible to reply to your walls of text (above in this thread) too. So don't reply in walls of text. And don't forget that you started it.

This section of my reply is well-organized and on-point (just to describe your harmful behaviour). While yours above were not. --In wkpd (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Examples of vandalism to Taiwan inspired by Nathan Rich's recent YouTube video

Is it relevant to point out that the Taiwan Wikipedia article has been vandalised multiple times ever since the discussions surrounding the YouTube video recently uploaded by Nathan Rich began? These instances of vandalism have pretty much all been in favour of Nathan Rich's views... Surely, the guy whose followers are vandalising the article on a regular basis is the malign actor? Horse Eye's Back and other users have been regularly reverting these instances of vandalism throughout this entire ordeal. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Examples (note: these are all reverts, not the actual instances of vandalism themselves):

1. Dif. 1
2. Dif. 2
3. Dif. 3
4. Dif. 4
5. Dif. 5
6. Dif. 6
7. Dif. 7

Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid this section is off-topic. Judging from the timeline, it's obvious that those "vandalism" events were caused by the video. Why do you think this is something unusual? A lot of people (including me) just hadn't been aware of this article, until we watched that video. And some of us who knew/cared little of Wikipedia's policies, just logged on their accounts, and did what they thought was correct (directly modifying the article). And that became the "vandalism" you're talking about. I was more cautious about editing directly, so I joined the talk page instead. --In wkpd (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Jargo Nautilus

Reply w.r.t. Replying to JN & Summary of her harmful behaviours
The term "bopomofo" refers to a system of transliteration for Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan/ROC. I am not familiar with its workings, though I've heard the term thrown around a lot. It sounds quite... interesting. It sounds offensive even though it's not offensive in meaning. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleting comments

Reply w.r.t. Deleting comments

Regarding the first one, I removed it because you were singling me out for no good reason. Regarding the second one, I found it quite rude how someone who literally just rocked up to Wikipedia one week ago was telling me to behave [my]self. Regarding the third one, I actually migrated the comments over to my talk page, and I did leave a brief message in a comment immediately afterwards explaining this, though I failed to leave a comment in the edit summary. JN 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) True, I did single out this phrase. However, I will say, I was actually annoyed by your behaviour for a number of reasons, not just this. This was just an example, not my entire argument. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Your idea of a joke is my idea of rudeness. My idea of a joke is your idea of rudeness. I mean, come on dude. You can't have double standards like that. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I'm a native English speaker. I obviously know that you weren't saying that I am a joke. However, I was rather annoyed at your comment in general. The part about that was kind of a joke wasn't really that annoying specifically. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) The term "frankly (speaking)" is synonymous with "honestly (speaking)" or "seriously (speaking)". The term "frankly (speaking)" does not at all indicate that you are joking around. In fact, it quite literally indicates the opposite. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Appending the footnote "it's just a joke" at the end of an otherwise fairly serious reply... doesn't inspire confidence that it's actually a joke. More so, it looks like you wrote a serious reply and then taped on "it's just a joke" at the very end. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) It's quite (Nathan) rich of you to throw around phrases like "assume good faith" when you yourself literally just showed up to Wikipedia only just one week ago in order to push a singular POV on a singular Wikipedia article. In fact, another user, Slatersteven, has called you out on your own talk page (User talk:In wkpd#SPA) accusing you of being a "single-purpose account (user)". JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) In terms of why I deleted the entire comment, I guess I was just lazy? I mean, all of your "points" were grouped up together in one paragraph. In any case, I deleted the entire comment because I found your singling out of me to be uncalled for. You could have singled out literally anyone else. In any case, the way that you addressed me wasn't in order to engage in discussion with me, but rather to make an example out of me. You had no intention of engaging in civil discussion when you wrote that comment. If, as you say, it was a joke... Don't you think you would have been better off not joking around, and instead actually engaging in serious discussion? JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) The part I found offensive was they might be thinking... mainland Chinese's common sense doesn't count. The way you and multiple other editors have addressed me in recent days has been quite... antagonistic? What makes you think I'm not mainland Chinese myself? My father is from mainland China. I have many family members in mainland China. The last time I visited mainland China was in December 2018. From your comment, it sounded like you were accusing me of being some kind of white knight. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Again, it's quite hypocritical of you to say that I seem to refuse to listen to different points of views and have real discussion. For your information, I can tell you now that I've disagreed with this particular user, Matt Smith, on several occasions (not just over the past few days, in fact, but over the past two years). And yet, I've also been able to come to agreements with this user on several occasions as well. The reason for this is that Matt Smith is not a single-purpose account user... This user has a range of different views and interests. On the other hand, you've been directly disagreeing with almost every single point I have ever raised. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Right, and the word "disgusting" certainly doesn't have any offensive (or potentially even racist) connotations. Okay then. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Also, did Irtapil ever even reply to your comment? As far as I can tell, that user gave up on this discussion days ago. They most likely didn't even realise that you had replied to them. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Wall of text? Yes. Off-topic? Not really. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I mean, it's pretty much just common sense. Isn't there a rule on Wikipedia called "no personal attacks"? I'm pretty sure just blatantly singling me out for no good reason, without even directly pinging me, is an example of a personal attack? Correct me if I'm wrong, buddy. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) True, it's against the rules to edit other people's comments. However, it's also against the rules to launch personal attacks. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I still think I had good reasons to be upset by your behaviour. Also, if anyone was making off-topic comments, you're a prime example. Other users, including Horse Eye's Back, specifically called you out for this earlier in the discussions. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Abusing the chat system

Reply w.r.t. Abusing the chat system

And, on the other hand, you have a history of setting up podiums for yourself, whereupon you deliver lengthy essays that nobody asked for. You've also uploaded a questionable image to Wikimedia Commons in order to support your twisted views. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) What do you mean by this? I typically put my comments in an indent, in front of the most recent comment, in order to clearly distinguish the comments apart. I guess this can be seen as "queue jumping", but it's not really my intention. It's better to reply this way rather than to reply at the end of other peoples' comments, since it looks like I'm replying to them instead of to you. This is just an organisational thing... it doesn't have anything to do with preferential treatment of comments. Honestly, I'm surprised you even thought this was a misdemeanour on my part. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

Reply w.r.t. Bludgeoning

I've made at least twenty different points, by now. I wouldn't say it's just making [my] own claims repeatedly. True, I do write lengthy comments, and a lot of comments. However, my comments do have some substance to them, if you'd bother to actually read them. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I have listened to your points, but most of them are highly hypocritical. Also, bear in mind that I usually don't see the need to reply to a person if I agree with their points. When people reply to one another in a thread whilst completely agreeing with one another's points, that is a practice that is colloquially known as "circle jerking" (an echo chamber). If I already agree with you, then there's no point in making any further comments. Sorry dude, but I'm not a person who kisses feet or licks boots. If I haven't addressed one of your points... congratulations, because that probably means I agree with you on that point. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Says the person who came Chargin' Targin' into this discussion brandishing a Nathan Rich YouTube video that literally just parrots the Chinese Communist Party line... (in fact, you yourself admitted that Nathan Rich has a policy of being non-critical of the Chinese government 100% of the time). JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) It's quite interesting how you claim to be impartial in these discussions, with no agenda (in fact, according to you, there's no need to talk about the motivation). However, at the same time, you seem hellbent on trying to discredit me, defame me, and deplatform me. Quite interesting, indeed. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "No personal attacks". JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I'm correct. Taiwan has never ruled by the PRC. I honestly don't know what point you're making here, but this point is extremely relevant to the discussions. I will ping Matt Smith, Horse Eye's Back and Benlisquare. Let's see what they think about this particular point that I raised. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Also, this section is a subheading, so it's not really a whole new section. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I actually interacted with Horse Eye's Back for a significant portion of those comments. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) It's not off-topic to argue that Taiwan is not part of the PRC... when the idea that Taiwan is part of the PRC was something that you yourself literally were pushing in a previous comment. You said that we should describe Taiwan as legally a part of China (the PRC). JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Honestly dude, that's some low-hanging fruit. That discussion didn't involve you, and it had nothing to do with the current "Nathan Rich saga". In any case, Matt Smith and I have seemingly come to some agreements recently, and from time to time anyway, we have agreed on things in the past. My way of conversing with people is a bit unorthodox, but I'm not exactly a brick wall. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I honestly do not have anything against Matt Smith. We've engaged in some fruitful discussions in the past. Matt Smith is generally a good Wikipedian. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Matt Smith is not exactly on your side, so don't go thinking that they'll come rushing to your defence at every opportunity they get. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Abused queue jumping

Reply w.r.t. Abused queue jumping

Facepalm. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) That's literally what I'm doing, dude. The reason for doing this was that other people had already replied to these messages. It actually is for clarity. This is something that I do on a regular basis. I even do it to my own comments. For example, here. I added a comment in front of my own volley of comments, with an indent. The purpose of this was to distinguish it from my other comments. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I honestly didn't even realise that people would view this as a problem, but, okay then. You're really struggling to find ways to incriminate me, dude. This is a non-issue, as far as I'm aware. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Constantly being uncivil

Evidence of being uncivil

Reply w.r.t. Evidence of being uncivil

Not untrue. Pinging Horse Eye's Back. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Come on dude, you've got to admit that this is funny (and rather witty, if I do say so myself). I even showed it to an internet friend of mine and she was like "lmao your comments on there are fire, get his ass". JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) What's your point here, exactly? I literally don't know what your schtick is. An explanation would be much appreciated. Also, I'm a poet. I love alliteration. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Bopomofo actually isn't a curse word, despite sounding sort of like one. I could have called you a "banana" or a "peanut" instead. Just a filler word, dude. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) This was also a joke, dude. My political views actually sort of lean towards communism? I'm not anti-communist, exactly. I'm just anti-Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP aren't even real communists... they're more like fascists or, at the very least, ultranationalists. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I actually cited a real article from Taiwan News that outlines Nathan Rich's criminal record. These accusations aren't exactly groundless. Far from it, in fact. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Again, I cited a real Taiwan News article that directly accuses Nathan Rich of being a felon. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith, groundlessly

Reply w.r.t. Assuming bad faith, groundlessly

Not groundlessly. I literally saw Nathan Rich's video almost as soon as it was released, and I just knew that the Taiwan Wikipedia article was going to be brigaded within a matter of days or even hours. That's why, when I saw your initial comment here, I was completely unsurprised, albeit still very irritated. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Explain how I'm wrong here? Why else would someone be pushing the notion that Taiwan isn't a country? If someone is saying that Taiwan is not a country because it's instead a part of the People's Republic of China (which is what you actually said, by the way), then I consider that statement to be one made in bad faith. My point that I was making is that I actually don't think Taiwan is a country. However, I believe that Taiwan is also not part of the People's Republic of China at the same time. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Your activity is unusual, to say the least. It would be helpful for you to divulge your motivations. There's no harm in asking... You don't have anything to hide, right? JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) This one's quite funny actually, since I said "goonies" instead of "goons". In any case, I don't see anything particularly wrong with this statement. Nathan Rich is a known troll. He's infamous not just among the Taiwanese English-speaking community but among American social democrats and anarchists in general. Many Americans see Nathan Rich as a guy who purely relies on his "whiteness" in order to appeal to a Chinese audience. He's seen as a guy who "understands China", even though he has no academic background on anything related to China whatsoever, as far as I can tell. He's literally just a businessman who parrots the Chinese Communist Party line in order to make money. I mean, props to him for finding a niche market to exploit... Truly the work of a shrewd capitalist. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptively refactored my speech

Reply w.r.t. Disruptively refactored my speech

It's a soapbox because you're parroting literal Chinese Communist Party propaganda and you've created your own "podium" to do so. Honestly, it's extremely hypocritical how you've called me out for making my own new sections (such as the one about Nathan Rich, or the one about the PRC's historical claim to Taiwan), whereas you've made several such sections yourself. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Your big blue "infobox" was very irritating. Why don't you just comment normally like everyone else is doing? In any case, nobody even bothered to respond to any of the points you raised, probably because it was making their eyes bleed. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Literally. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Right, I don't care. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I can't be bothered to reply to this properly. Just read the rest of my comments. I've been sitting here for three hours typing nonstop. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I mean, fair's fair, since I collapsed your own walls of texts. Go ahead, dude. I honestly don't care at this point. Go eat potatoes, or something. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Oh, I've been listening, alright. I've been listening for three hours straight, at this point. Though, "listening" is not synonymous with "agreeing". JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Not really. I've made a lot of different points. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Glad I could be of service. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I've been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years now. No one has really gone to such lengths to incriminate me as you have. This is despite the fact that many of the users I've previously interacted with were well-experienced, such as Matt Smith and Horse Eye's Back. On the other hand, you only started using Wikipedia last week. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) You know you're way out of line here, right? JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) You've tried by trying your absolute hardest to defame, denounce and deride me. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Matt Smith, Horse Eye's Back, Slatersteven, Benlisquare, and Zoozaz1: JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• You two deserve each other. EEng 14:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • My preferred reaction would just be to abandon this discussion. Unfortunately, In wkpd is constantly trying to revive this discussion which clearly already died days ago. Anyway, you can read my lengthy reply at your own discretion. I've just now presented a much briefer rebuttal in the section above. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You wanted to abandon this discussion? Did you forget accusing me of making ad hominem attack against you? The whole thing started from your disrespect to the rules. Just don't do anything if you're not sure you have the right to do so. And never make up rights yourself, like "delete comments not pinging you". --In wkpd (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Also, try to be civil. Trying to prove your point by slandering others (be it a Wikipedian or not) will only reveal your lack of justification.

      And try to respect others. Since you don't like reading walls of text, why do you make a lot of them?

      Think through your speech before making it, rather than making walls of text one after another. Can you imagine how messy the talk page would be if everyone is making walls of text like you? What makes you think you're so special? That everyone has to tolerate you? --In wkpd (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  • @EEng: Sorry for pinging you. --In wkpd (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks for pinging me to let me know that. I actually don't mind being pinged. But I do prefer ANI threads in which one side is clearly at fault e.g. writes huge walls of text that drive everyone crazy. For a while there, it seemed like that was JN, and you seemed normal. But then you went and spoiled it, so that now it seems like you two are on a shared mission to rob the community of its collective sanity. EEng 21:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why was I dragged into this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Slywriter by Jargo Nautilus

Disclaimer. As far as I'm aware, nobody has said that I can't make a new section to reply to Slywriter's comment below.

Oppose for Jango as comments here clearly indicate Jango believes they must defend Taiwan against the CCP... Can you edit Taiwan related articles fairly and according to reliable sources without allowing your personal feelings on Taiwan and the CCPguide your editing and discussions with other editors?

Firstly, I'd like to point out that just because I have political views (by the way, everyone does), that doesn't mean I can't be impartial in my Wikipedia edits.

Secondly, in order to understand my motivations, which I've previously stated that I'm willing to disclose, some information is important to know. As I've informed Horse Eye's Back elsewhere, I actually directly discovered my Taiwanese ancestry as a result of reading the Taiwan Wikipedia article in 2017. Having a significant portion of my identity completely absent for most of my life so far has been deeply traumatic for me, especially considering the exact (very tragic) nature of my connections to Taiwan. My primary goal is not to advocate for Taiwan in any nefarious sense -- to "defend Taiwan against the CCP" -- but rather to promote the culture and history of Taiwan so that other members of the Taiwanese diaspora will not lose their connections to Taiwan as I myself did (obviously, it is optimal if this can be achieved through the usage of reliable sources).

I actually watched Nathan Rich's entire video about the Taiwan Wikipedia article a short while before all of these discussions began opening up on the talk page. In my opinion, based on the things that Rich said in the video, his intention is not merely to promote China's territorial claim to Taiwan (note: I'm actually not completely opposed to the idea that Taiwan should be part of China, though I am completely opposed to the idea that Taiwan is currently part of China; these are actually two separate concepts), but rather to completely wipe Taiwan off the map. He believes that the opinions of 23 million people living on the island of Taiwan are irrelevant. In my opinion, the Taiwanese have the fundamental human right of self-determination. If they choose to "reunify" with China, then, so be it. However, whatever happens, the Taiwanese people must be allowed to determine their own fate.

Overall, my views on Taiwan are that articles about the country/state/region/territory should primarily be focused on history and culture. Wikipedia is meant to be a tool of learning, not a playground for dictators. I personally learnt a great deal about my own heritage, and, by extension, my own identity, by reading various articles on Wikipedia (especially Taiwan-related ones, but others as well). I've also conducted research elsewhere (Wikipedia is not a reliable source). People who are coming onto Wikipedia for the sole purpose of rewriting the Taiwan Wikipedia article to read Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China are malign actors who clearly are not at all interested in improving the usability, reliability and accessibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedic website.

As a final word, I would like to thank the diligent Taiwan Wikipedia community for writing numerous informative articles about this mysterious island that does not exist. I've managed to learn a lot more about myself by reading these various Taiwan-related articles. Regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

See this section: Examples of vandalism to Taiwan inspired by Nathan Rich's recent YouTube video Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed result JA/inwkpd

JN and In wkpd, I'll ask that you continue to use the above sections and leave this one for other editors.

1. Propose a strong warning to In wkpd for possibly being WP:NOTHERE, not sure how an editor who has made a very tiny number of edits ended up here after a short back-and-forth at talk. You're going to need to prove you're here to build an encyclopedia.—valereee (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Propose a warning to Jargo Nautilus to stop reformatting and removing other people's article talk posts just because they don't like them. That is not how it's done, and again you are no newb and should realize that. —valereee (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Propose warning both editors that these walls of text are disruptive editing, here or on any talk page. —valereee (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1, 2, & 3 as proposer. —valereee (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Understood. I accept the proposed terms of the hearing. I'm going to read up more on Wikipedia rules, as I've said. I've already compiled a couple of useful Wikipedia guide articles. And I've fixed up my user page a little. Regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    Jargo Nautilus, but apparently you didn't read the first sentence. —valereee (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    • I just noticed it (I initially misread it and thought you meant something else). Sorry. My point still stands, though. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for Jango as comments here clearly indicate Jango believes they must defend Taiwan against the CCP. So unless Jango can answer this yes or no question in the affirmative, I believe they need to steer clear of Taiwan related articles:

Can you edit Taiwan related articles fairly and according to reliable sources without allowing your personal feelings on Taiwan and the CCPguide your editing and discussions with other editors? (Withdrawn to avoid further interactions by either editor in this section, per opening sentence.)

On in_wkpd, the editor's conduct here is concerning and potentially tendentious but AGF and Don't bite say to give them some time to prove this isn't indicative of their future editing. (Though their refactoring of my comments and detailed analysis of Jango does make me wonder how new they truly are) Slywriter (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2 & 3, Oppose 1: The evidence of JN's talk page disruption at Talk:Taiwan has already been presented; though In wkpd has not presented their case well, it is farfetched to claim that that episode by itself is exhibiting WP:NOTHERE. In addition to the talk page re-factoring, JN should also be warned on WP:NOTFORUM: this edit above to this thread is an interminable avalanche of WP:RGW (the most egregious being parroting CCP arguments) and the continued mentions of Nathan Rich's personal life inexcusable. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2, oppose 3, neutral on 1. Setting aside my personal feelings about the CCP, Jargo Nautilus' removal of comments breaches WP:TPO and she'd be getting off lightly with a slap on the wrist.
  While I believe that less is definitely more and that walls of text discourage people from engaging further (as the WP:ELEM threads on here a few weeks back have demonstrated), I think the consequence of having fewer participants join in the discussion is enough, and understand the thought of how providing insufficient details could lead to unwanted administrator action.
  I remain neutral in regards to In wkpd potentially being WP:NOTHERE; there's not much NOTHERE activity for me to make that determination; they very quickly found this noticeboard, though I'll assume it is from lurking on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 3 with the caveat that we have a checkuser give In wkpd a once-over, like my fellow editors I have reservations about any account that is born a fully formed editor as if from Zeus’s head. They’re also made a few misrepresentations of their own editing history which is cause for concern. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and oppose 3 Because In wkpd is relatively new here, the warning could be moderate rather than strong. And this is Jargo Nautilus's first time catching attention for removing comments, so the warning could be moderate, too. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Deus ex machina

Comment (update) JN has been blocked (and talk page access revoked) for outing; unless they can appeal via UTRS, Nos. 2 and 3 are moot. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

We really need a rule requiring that ANI participants do all their blockworthy stuff at the start of the case so we can block them right away and save everyone a lot of trouble. EEng 01:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Pkeets

I believe that Pkeets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is either in need of some serious guidance regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or an American Politics 2 topic ban for WP:NOTHERE reasons (alert). (Note please: I am not asking for a WP:NOTHERE sanction, they have been around longer than I have, but multiple editors are agreeing their behavior in the American Politics area is over the line and showing deep disregard for wikipedia policies.)

Problematic/WP:POVPUSH behavior:

1. Accused PhilKnight of having "a biased viewpoint" (17:46, 25 November 2020) after being warned by SnoogansSnoogans for edit warring on Nahshon Garrett‎ (User talk:Pkeets#Edit-warring on Nahshon Garrett, warning at 14:46, 25 November 2020). Similarly, they placed a retaliatory "warning" on SnoogansSnoogans's talk page (17:48, 25 November 2020).
2. 20 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#Servers seized by the US military?: "POV is showing" apparently in response to this edit. Followed by making commentary about something Powell apparently said on a Glenn Beck segment.
3. 20 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#"Some sources have described Powell as a 'model of a high achieving lawyer' while other sources have called her a conspiracy theorist": accused editors of "[belittling] her accomplishments because she's taken on Trump's legal fight", accused GorillaWarfare of an "edit war" for reverting in the WP:BRD cycle, accused both GW and AleatoryPonderings of editing the article "to be a reflection of short-term battles going on in the media", repeatedly engaged in WP:POVPUSH on the idea that somehow Wikipedia should represent Powell's claims as plausible despite all WP:RS coverage otherwise.
4. 24 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#RfC: Describing Powell as conspiracy theorist?: lack of understanding of WP:RS policy along with "There's apparent clarification on Powell's role from the Trump Team today, but it's not being covered by main stream media, so I guess it doesn't exist, right?", and accused editors of "an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot."
5. 23–24 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#This article seems biased and short on who Sidney Powell is.: repeated accusation of "an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot", and some comments about "Look what that does to Wikipedia's credibility" after being pointed to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
6. 26 November 2020, on Voter Integrity Fund: accusing others of conspiring to prevent them from "establishing links" to de-orphan the article, and trying to direct individuals to "check the history" for supposed "preliminary findings" of the group ([54])
7. 26 November 2020, regarding Voter Integrity Fund at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voter Integrity Fund, accused other editors of "suppressing" the group's supposed "findings". ([55])
8. 25 November 2020, attempted to create a section on GoFundMe [56] for the purposes of listing right-wing grievances, specifically only listing the organization's removals of campaigns for "Voter Integrity Fund" and the perpetrator of the Kenosha unrest shooting.
9. 15 November 2020, repeatedly pushing the talking point at various articles that Biden was somehow not President-elect despite WP:RS concurrence that he was/is; claiming that describing Biden as such is a violation of NPOV (examples, there are far more in contribution history): [57] [58] [59] [60]
10. 22–23 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Primary vs. secondary sources, lack of understanding of primary vs secondary sources, and Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing. Making unfounded claims about the origins of the report to try to portray it as a secondary source. Commenting, "You don't want readers to know it's easily hackable?"
11. 23 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Article references biased alt left news sources rather than scientific sources. The claims in the articles are scientifically absurd, apparently trying to recruit a SPA with an unrelated complaint to support their argument, with the comment "Please join the discussion in the section above where editors are blocking a paragraph on how the Dominion systems are vulnerable to hacking." [61]
12. 24 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Disappearing paragraphs on reliability, accusing editors of "disappearing" material, again misrepresenting sources (up to and including trying to use a paper that was analysis of an entirely different company), again conflating primary/secondary sources and independent/self-published sources. To quote GorillaWarfare: "I am concerned with this ongoing behavior: both the attempts to use shoddy sourcing to influence readers into believing Dominion is "easily hackable" (per your admission on this talk page), and now increasingly making accusations against editors who are trying to enforce quality sourcing that they are "blocking a paragraph on how the Dominion systems are vulnerable to hacking" and "disappearing paragraphs"."

They are also the creators of the pages Sidney Powell and Voter Integrity Fund, both of which are problematic. The creation of Sidney Powell had precisely five sources [62]: two to her personal website, one to her business website "federalappeals.com" (which is attributed in the copyright notice to "Sidney Powell P.c."), one to her blog page at observer.com, and one to an IMDB biography page. None of these sources managed to establish notability at that time and none were WP:RS.

Just before creating Sidney Powell, they promoted Voter Integrity Fund conspiracy theories [63][64].

Their creation of Voter Integrity Fund [65] also appears to fall into the problem behavior. Their text did not match well with the sources; they took only the quotes positive towards the project (despite the overall sources' tones being highly skeptical), and sourced some information to dubious pages such as a small bio on the "Leadership Institute" website. Edits since by Pkeets have been reverted for falsely representing sources [66] [67], for bad sourcing and copyright violation concerns [68]. They have also tried to slide in a link to the group's self-promoting videos on Youtube [69]. The page is currently up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voter Integrity Fund) and the only supporters of keeping it are Pkeets and a throwaway account that was created solely to vote there (Stevenola).

The primary purpose of Pkeets's editing appears to be precisely two things: promotion of conspiracy theories regarding voting in the 2020 election, and by extension Sidney Powell and the "Voter Integrity Fund", two main promoters of those conspiracy theories. I leave it up to the administrators and community how to proceed. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, @Doug Weller: and others who indicate that this should have been filed at WP:AE. I filed it here after asking advice from GorillaWarfare on where the proper place to file it was. If I have made a mistake or misunderstood her advice, please do not take it out on her.

I agree with your assessment especially after realizing my own mistake in misreading the length of their contribution history, which is why I asked for them to receive some serious guidance regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources as the first thing, and even extended the first paragraph of my own post to make it 100% clear that I was not asking for anything related to WP:NOTHERE. I feel I have to directly and fully reject the characterizations or aspersions cast by others in this thread that I am somehow being vindictive about this. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• The editor Pkeets is using Wikipedia articles to promote conspiracy theories about fraud in the 2020 election, as well as voter fraud in general (see the editor's history on the PILF[70] earlier in the year). The editor does this by (i) removing reliably sourced content that reflects poorly on groups and individuals who make unsubstantiated and false fraud claims, and (ii) stating poorly substantiated conspiracy theories in Wikipedia's voice or by attributing them to these individuals without any kind of qualifier that the claims are disputed (see for example how the unsubstantiated claims of a pro-Trump group of randoms get characterized as research/investigation "findings"[71][72]). The editor engages in some edit-warring[73][74] but not any clear-cut 3RR violations as far as I can tell. The editor also engages in behavior that borders on canvassing, such as seeking help from WikiProject Conservatism[75] and contacting likeminded users[76]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Pkeets. Noting that I am WP:INVOLVED for the purposes of this complaint, so this should not be taken as an uninvolved admin comment. I have been a party to several of the discussions listed above.
  I share IHateAccounts' concerns with this editor. I was actually quite surprised to find that Pkeets has been a prolific editor for quite some time (though with a bit of a hiatus from October 2016–June 2020), because their blatant POV-pushing and poor use of sources struck me as the behavior of a newer editor. It could be that they got somewhat rusty with policy over that hiatus, though not that much has changed and they were never really fully inactive.
  Anyway, that tangent aside, it does not seem that they can set aside their personal beliefs on what happened in the 2020 election in order to edit productively in this topic area. Their contributions are disruptive and time-consuming for other editors to deal with. Adding to what Snooganssnoogans said above about their attempts to canvass at WikiProject Conservatism, that linked discussion is not the only attempt Pkeets has made there. The last three sections at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism were started by them, and significantly misrepresent the disputes. Several editors challenged Pkeets' changes to Public Interest Legal Foundation because they were unsourced, included claims not in the provided sources, and/or used poor-quality or primary sources; Pkeets described this as "Apparently there is resistance to any kind of editing to extend it or improve the POV" ([77]). The issue with sourcing at Dominion Voting Systems, described by IHA above, was portrayed by Pkeets there as "unreasonable demands for sources" and included further misrepresentations of the sources ([78]). Finally, in their section there on Sidney Powell, Pkeets again says Powell was "being framed as a crackpot conspiracy theorist" ([79]).
  I think at least an AP topic ban would be appropriate. I have not yet looked too much into their editing in other topic areas to know if these issues persist there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I still fail to see why a white paper report from the State of California on their assessment of the system is not a good quality source. I supplied an online definition of "white paper" as a secondary source. Why is the State of CA unreliable? Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This ANI discussion is to address the behavioral concerns, not rehash the discussions that have already been held about primary/secondary sources. If you want to continue that line of discussion, Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Primary vs. secondary sources is still open, or feel free to request additional eyes at WP:RSN. However I think I've explained quite clearly there why this is a primary source, and your repeated attempts to describe it in different ways as a secondary source seem to suggest you either don't know the origins of the report, or are trying to convince editors the report is something it's not so they will believe it's secondary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• From what I can tell this is a common issue with IHateAccounts. After seeing how active they are on user talk pages trying to get people they disagree with sanctioned I decided to take a closer look at their contribution history and what I found is a disturbing trend of bludgeoning, attacks, and way to much time on user talk pages discussing other users. All this after being warned[80][81] about such things and even blocked[82] for it they continue their apparent crusade as demonstrated above.
  • Bludgeoning - Mostly at Talk:Parler & Talk:Proud_Boys from what I can tell in the short time they have been editing those talk pages they have shot up to well within top 10 editors overall.[83][84]
  • Attacks on other users, general battel ground behavior, and just adding to a toxic editing environment. These were taken just over the past two weeks.[85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99]
  • Finally they are spending way to much time on user talk pages either trying to get people sanctioned or just stirring up drama. It is also a good illustration of issues they have with various users that they then seem to follow around just to argue with.[100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113]
• This really needs to end now. PackMecEng (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  I will keep this brief to avoid encouraging editors to derail this thread with complaints about IHateAccounts, but I have disagreed with PackMecEng's characterization of IHA's behavior once already: User talk:GorillaWarfare#Re: Bus stop. I'm not even sure how PackMecEng found themselves at my talk page to leave that comment, but I don't understand their criticism of IHA's (frankly wise) choice as a newer editor to consult with more experienced editors about issues in a fraught topic area; that is behavior that I believe should be encouraged, if anything. Furthermore, they fail to mention that the concerns IHA had with Bus stop turned out to be quite founded, resulting in a recent AP2 topic ban for Bus stop (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler) which was upheld after an appeal (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Bus_stop). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  When it keeps happening it goes from wise to harassments and problematic as I have shown above. I do not know why you would want to encourage such toxic behavior in such a controversial topic area. It is frankly disturbing and baffling from an admin and an arb. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am well aware that, as a right-wing editor, PackMecEng dislikes me (especially since I am nonbinary). They even have taken to blaming me for the fact that some of their friends have been sanctioned, which I consider incorrect. In their series above they make gross misrepresentations; for instance, when I commented to Drmies regarding Geno4445, it is because their SOLE edit on Wikipedia - EVER - is this [114] in which they ramble on about the very conspiracy theories promoted by Powell and end with "For if this corruption is not purged, then the United States stands to be subjected to such people like Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro" at Sidney Powell. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. It is a prime example of the editing issues I demonstrated above. I appreciate the (especially since I am nonbinary) part since I have no way of knowing, never talked about it and could not care less about it. WP:ASPERSIONS like that are a big problem. PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: You provide a wall of diffs for the initial accusation up at the top of the thread, but none for this one? If you don't have any, this is an incredibly inflammatory comment, and a blatant personal attack. jp×g 23:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I for one would like to thank IHateAccounts for saving me the trouble of reading the diffs to determine if PME's analysis was accurate. Q.E.D. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Similar commentary seems to have continued on GorillaWarfare's talkpage about this AN/I thread: I'm walking away. I knew there was a likelihood posting this would lead to multiple right-wing editors coming in to scream, but I think what I need is a hot soak with a lush bomb.[115]. About that battleground attitude... --Pudeo (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Warned IHA once again on their talk for making personal attacks. IHA, I really don't care what you think about PME, but keep it to yourself. —valereee (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• NOTHERE? That's just shameful. Here we have the OP, a month old account that already had to be blocked for personal attacks and harassment, and Pkeets who has been editing more than a decade and who has created almost 1,000 articles with a clean block log. I beg to differ who here is not to build an encyclopedia. People have opinions about American politics and that shows in content disputes, but obsessing over them like this is not healthy. Pkeets is likely to "lose" the AfD, is that not enough? --Pudeo (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:AP2 applies to everyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • IIRC, IHA has been around a whole heck of a lot longer as an IP, and was encouraged to create an account by several well-respected editors, some who have commented here. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It's hard to say. Sometimes they are referred to as new other times not. Seems situation dependent. PackMecEng (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• This thread starts off with Note please: I am not asking for a WP:NOTHERE sanction -- so it sounds to me like the desired outcome is a TBAN (not sure why this wasn't brought up at AE if that was the case). In that case, the disputes this thread were spawned from are the primary issue at hand. While I don't really love to get political with my editing, and I think it's important to avoid derailing an AN/I thread, I think it would be impossible to discuss the dispute in question without mentioning OP's conduct. For example, on the talk page of the article this thread is about, they have been heavily involved in multiple disputes, in a distinctly WP:BATTLEGROUND way: using the page as a forum to insult the subject, hatting and removing entire sections after disagreeing in a BITEy way with the comments in them, describing posts they disagree with as "rants", et cetera. They've even gone on other users' talk pages and described Pkeets (the editor this thread is a complaint about) with recursive scare-quotes as being "on the "but affidavits" and "but 'the media'" kick yet again". All of that is literally just in connection with this one article; not to get off-topic with other stuff here, but it seems to me that IHA experiences broad difficulty participating civilly in discussions about WP:AP2 subjects. I have held back on making a post like this for a while (I don't have an enduring interest in getting mad about politics on Wikipedia), but in a very short time period this editor has started (or brought extreme acrimony to) a large number of vicious disputes, and I think it might be necessary to take some action in that regard. jp×g 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Long-term editor or not, IMO GorillaWarfare's post above already provides sufficiently convincing edivence of tendentious editing by Pkeets to justify an AP topic ban for Pkeets. Of course, ANI is an extremely poor venue for obtaining consensus for topic bans related to conentious POV laden areas. These discussions usually get quickly sidetracked by the participation of editors from both sides of the dispute who often have significant POV and conduct issues of their own. I don't have much hope that this thread will fare much better in this regard. A much better course of action here would have been to file a request at WP:AE asking for an AP2 topic ban to be enacted under the discretionary sanctions in effect. Pkeets was formally notified about those discretionary sanctions back on September 24[116]. Quite possibly the OP deserves the same kind of a topic ban. I just wish people used AE for these purposes instead of producing train-wreck interminable ANI threads. Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Seems to me to be a straightforward case with more than enough diffs to support TBANing both editors from AP2. What AP2 needs is fewer battleground editors, and it doesn't matter which "wing" they're from. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Support tban for pkeets in case that wasn't clear from my earlier comment. Anyone who is still arguing that Biden is not the president-elect should not be editing AP2. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If i may correct your spelling, Levivich, "What Wikipedia needs is fewer battleground editors". Otherwise, amen and hallelujah to your comment; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support AP2 ban for Pkeets, I'd need to see more about IHateAccounts. Template:ReIHateAccounts this really should be at WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any topic ban longer than 3 months. Reviewing Pkeets's contribs prior to November, they seem to be an excellent contributor. Looking at some of the diffs in the OP, Pkeets's recent conduct doesn't seem as bad as the framing would suggest. Some of their edits may have battle ground qualities, but no "worse" than many of the left leaning editors in the AP2 arena ('Worse' is in air quotes as I wonder if one of JFK's fave quotes currently applies to AP2. ) That said, Pkeets does seem to have been pushing a PoV concerning Trump's election fraud line that is contradicted by the vast majority of WP:RS. Even if they want to retain those beliefs privately, they should recognise that advancing said view is a lost cause on Wikipedia. If they can't do that, a short topic ban might be an efficient way to stop further disruption. Lastly, I applaud IHateAccounts for taking this to ANI rather than going straight to AE. Good to give Pkeets a chance to moderate their editing after some community comment, without necessarily having a sanction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Support t-ban for both IHA and Pkeets - "a narrow topic ban on matters relating to the 2020 US Election, perhaps time-limited until 21 January" for Pkeets per Black Kite, and a 30 day AP2 t-ban for IHA to cool their heels since their block did not remedy the problem. ^{added 18:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)} - aren't we supposed to graduate remedies for disruption. Since this is his (Pkeets) first, why not just a week ? Some of the accusations and proposed remedies are seriously undeserved. This is not a consistently problematic editor. Atsme 💬 📧 13:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited AP2 topic ban for at least Pkeets. Haven't waded through the other diffs yet so am neutral for IHateAccounts at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• This really belongs at AE. However, from a quick look at the provided diffs this does appear to be an editor in previously excellent standing who has fallen down the election conspiracy-theory rabbit-hole, with the result that they are coming up against Wikipedia policies which they are clearly aware of. The behaviour at Voter Integrity Fund as regarding misrepresentation of sourcing is pretty poor, as is attempting to either introduced conspiracy theory material (or remove the fact that things have been described as conspiracy theories). I would support a narrow topic ban on matters relating to the 2020 US Election, perhaps time-limited until 21 January. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban on IHA and yet another strong warning to stop with the personal attacks. Accusing PME of being motivated by personal hatefulness is beyond the pale. Why are we putting up with the relentless ABF from this editor? Support also a short AP2 tban for Pkeets, maybe things'll return to normal for them in a couple of months, but for IHA from everything I've seen this is the norm. —valereee (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, your iVote may accidentally be counted as an S for Pkeets in lieu of IHA, considering a boomerang has not yet been called, and may inadvertently be overlooked. Atsme 💬 📧 15:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Like my bad ping to Valereee. *sigh* Atsme 💬 📧 15:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support AP2 topic ban for Pkeets, at least 3 months or longer. Oppose anything more than a warning for IHA at this point. POV pushing and tendentious editing propagating fringe views like Sidney Powell conspiracy theories represents a much greater danger here, and we should absolutely not allow Wikipedia to be used in this way. In relation to IHA, I have not seen more that overzelousness, incivility and some personal attacks. Certainly worthy of a warning, but it's not the same as misuse if sources and pushing a fringe POV agenda. Nsk92 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nsk92: IHA has been warned multiple times before as well as blocked for it. Even their mentor GW commented about their actions in this very thread that they need to provide diffs or remove their aspersions above.[117] PackMecEng (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban for Pkeets for 3 months. Agree completely with Nsk92. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 ban for IHA. In the short time IHA has had a named account their behavior has been nothing but confrontational/battleground. They have accused multiple editors of trolling/being trolls. They have refactored/deleted talk page threads (sometimes legitimately but as often questionably after others have replied). Since they were editing as an IP it's hard to say what their behavior was when it was hard to track them as a single editor (though I have found at least one instance of accusing another editor of trolling) I can provide diffs when I have more time. Springee (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Pkeets Supporting baseless conspiracy theories shows WP:CIR issues for the topic area. Is IHA really any worse than Valjean, as far as conduct goes? It's clear IHA needs to tone the rhetoric down, but I'm not sure that's worth a topic ban on its own unless this continues. I think IHA's claim comes from a reddit user with the name "PKMEC" calling IHA a "tranny" on various wikipedia related subreddits. I don't think the account is likely by PacMec, and is by an anonymous troll look to stir up trouble. I think that IHA should apologise to PacMec. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic bans for both We have a terrible habit here of overlooking bad behaviour because we agree with the editors POV. This needs to stop and IHA's response to PackMecEng would lead to a sanction if it came from an editor with a different POV. A topic ban for Pkeets is a no brainer. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban for both editors I suggest that the topic bans expire on January 21, 2021, with an explicit warning to both editors that future infractions will result in very long blocks. Endorse the comment by Levivich, "What AP2 needs is fewer battleground editors, and it doesn't matter which "wing" they're from." We need to be less forgiving of political battleground editing, no matter the editor's political persuasion. That being said, passionate advocacy of summarizing reliable sources is inherently less problematic than passionate advocacy for including content from unreliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic bans for both for 90 days to get us beyond the inauguration and any fallout that may happen immediately after.--MONGO (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic bans for both editors It helps everyone stay civil when we make it clear that there are no special exceptions to behavioral expectations. It's hardly surprising that political subjects raise hackles and occasionally invite WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior; strict, time-limited topic bans would be a measured and appropriate response to that reality. I'm sure Pkeets and IHA can find other subject areas where it's easier for them to contribute constructively in the meantime. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 00:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I am slightly involved, in that I !voted at the AfD and noted Pkeets' strong advocacy - such as including in the article detailed biographies of two non-notable (no Wiki article) people involved with the organization, and objecting when they were removed. I conclude from the discussion here that Pkeets is a productive editor who has temporarily lost sight of WP:NEUTRALITY due to the emotions of the moment. I think it would be best if they either were temporarily blocked from editing articles related to the 2020 election, or voluntarily agreed to refrain, until after the inauguration. I see that Pkeets has not so far commented here, and I would like to hear from them before an outcome is decided; maybe they will voluntarily agree to a restriction. As for IHateAccounts, I have no opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been gone for Thanksgiving and came back to find this going on. Will it do any good if I state that I think all the above accusations are incredibly biased? If fact, they reflect back on the behavior of the supporting editors. If anyone is interested, I'm a Democrat and a moderate. The problem is likely that I've been a Wikipedia editor for fifteen years and I recall when neutral POV was important in the articles. See quote from Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger last week declaring that Wikipedia is now “badly biased” and “no longer has an effective neutrality policy.” Not only that, but editors who attempt to provide some kind of professionalism and balance in the articles are banned--am I to understand this correctly? Pkeets (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sanger is no longer a voice of reason regarding Wikipedia, NPOV, and RS. He now pushes conspiracy theories and uses many abominable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Has he been banned? Is that why he's complaining? Pkeets (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No, he's not banned. He hasn't been actively involved in Wikipedia since... 2002 I want to say? He has tried to build several WP competitors (Digital Universe Encyclopedia, Citizendium, Infobitt, Everipedia, and most recently the "Encyclosphere") and now seems to also be on the right-wing conspiracy theorist circuit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've replied to some of the accusations above. Most of what has gone on is the standard BS that happens in Wikipedia when a group of people want to own a topic, and set barriers to entry for any outside editors. In other words, I expect it's the issue of controlling a narrative that's the basic problem. I'm also somewhat appalled at the support these complaints have received without apparent study of the actions involved and, basically, against the interests of Wikipedia as a broad and reliable source of information. Notice that some large online sites may be about to lose their Section 230 status for censorship of alternate viewpoints. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have "barriers to entry?" Yes, we do have them. They are called RS, and source reliability is judged by accuracy, not by any particular bias, be it left or right. As is always the case with politically relevant facts (IOW not all facts), there are those sources which agree with them, and those sources which do not. This is a factor in what's known as "disinformation laundering.": "The U.S. media ecosystem features several spheres that partially overlap and constantly interact with each other....The mainstream media... The conspiratorial media... and Disclosers."

Currently, with few exceptions, the right-wing media has become so extreme that it is the described "conspiratorial media," with some extreme left-wing sources also in that group. At some other point in history, the roles might be reversed. It all depends on which narratives, true or false, are favorable to those in power. With Trump and the GOP, they have clearly chosen disinformation and conspiracy theories to stoke Trump's base, and he often gets those narratives from sources like Fox News, Daily Caller, Breitbart, RT, Sputnik, and Russian intelligence efforts to plant propaganda and fake news, which he then repeats.

The point? Yes, Wikipedia does have "barriers to entry," and we should be thankful for them, not criticize and undermine them. -- Valjean (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Declaring that some large online sites may be about to lose their Section 230 status for censorship of alternate viewpoints makes it difficult to discuss anything with you in good faith, because you are operating in some alternate universe where this is true - when it is not. This idea exists only in the fever dreams of desperately-in-denial Trumpists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You are hardly the only editor in this discussion to have edited Wikipedia for a long time. If anything, it makes your difficulties with sourcing more unacceptable, given you should certainly know the RS policy by now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you the guy who thinks scientific study articles published in peer reviewed journals are "primary sources" and therefore unacceptable? And white paper reports are unsuitable? Instead, you want these references replaced by articles from popular media? Pkeets (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a guy, and the report you are describing is neither a scientific study nor is it published in a peer reviewed journal. I see you have not stopped misrepresenting sources, a concern I described in detail in my comment (23:02, 28 November 2020) at the top of this section. If you're asking if I am the person who has told you that Wikipedia articles need to follow the policy on original research, which contains the section WP:PRIMARY, yes, that is me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I have moved Pkeets' replies to IHA's original report out from where they've inserted them into IHA's comment, which is impossible to read and breaks their numbering. I've numbered them below so that it's clear where Pkeets was replying. Pkeets, feel free to reformat as you like, but please don't edit into other users' comments like this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

2. What do you think about deletion a whole section of an article because someone's personal experience as reported on Fox is "Too supportive of voter fraud"? If it happened, it happened. Pkeets (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC

3. How is this an example of misbehavior? I've called you out for only looking at the sources you want to use. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

8. Are you sure you're talking about the correct editor? How far left are you that moderate, centrist views are now called "right-wing?" Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

9. The position is well defined by the sources in the article. Please check the definition of "president elect" again. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

11. The State of California assessment of the system is not a biased alt-left source. Neither is CNN. Are you unsure whether I'm "alt left" or "right wing?" Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

12. Again, the State of California assessment is not a shoddy source. Nothing I used as a source on this article failed to include Dominion. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How many sources does the article have now? Can you say she's not prominent and not deserving of an article? Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You're quite welcome to provide your own opinion on these articles, or not. I don't see that anyone has hesitated to frame Powell as a conspiracy theorist. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Only quickly replying to these points, since most of your objections have already been discussed at length, but two things: Regarding your response to point 11, please click into the link. IHateAccounts has linked to a section titled "Article references biased alt left news sources rather than scientific sources. The claims in the articles are scientifically absurd", but they were not the one who created the section, nor were they the one using "alt-left" as a descriptor. That was courtesy of VanishingMediator. As for your question "Can you say she's not prominent and not deserving of an article?", I don't think anyone has suggested that–if they had, we'd be at WP:AfD, not ANI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Pkeets: I think that Pkeets' willingness to spread conspiracy theory material is concerning. More importantly, their continued defensiveness on every single point indicates that they're not willing to step back and accept feedback from other editors. "Will it do any good if I state that I think all the above accusations are incredibly biased?" Not really; it would be better to reflect on what people have been telling you, and how much our coverage should reflect mainstream reliable sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It remains to be seen whether these are conspiracy theories. So the solution to disagreements is not really consensus, but to ban centrist editors that think you should go by definitions and show both sides of an issue? This is a fairly common turf battle on Wikipedia, which is deservedly getting a bad reputation for toxic environment and suppression of information. Everyone here needs to look at their own behavior. Pkeets (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The solution to disagreements is to go to first principles, and look at what reliable sources are saying. If you reject reliable sources and all you have is a desire to show "both sides" without sources to back it up, then you're just not doing this right. You can use the word "toxic" if you want, but it's a basic principle of Wikipedia, and you don't seem to be interested in following it. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, now we have heard from Pkeets. I was waiting for that. What we have heard is not encouraging. I see no acknowledgement that their edits have been POV - rather a doubling-down on their "right" to edit from a partisan perspective. This makes me more inclined to support a short term topic ban from American politics. My hope that they might voluntarily agree to taking a vacation from the topic was clearly misplaced. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Pkeets per Toughpigs. --JBL (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding IHA (Alternate proposal)

I am not usually willing to do this, but I suppose this seems like an exceptional case. I would actually be completely willing to co-WP:ADOPT IHateAccounts. It seems they have had a negative experience recently, yet I see a lot of potential with this editor here. Wikipedia is stressful, and we sometimes say and do things we later come to regret. I see IHA's problem as not being able to WP:AGF in this topic field, but my sense is that is something they could improve on given enough time. Though, in the meantime, an apology to Pac is very much in order.
Would this be something all the parties (except Pkeets) would be willing to agree to? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Very noble of you, MJL. Just curious...are you aware that Gorilla Warfare, a proficient arb/admin, is their mentor now? Also keep in mind that we're not discussing a new editor in IAH, as they have been editing for quite some time as an IP, thus the new user name/registration, thanks to GW's persuasion. Perhaps a bit of cool down period will provide both editors some time for introspection, and for IAH to feel less emboldened or inclined to run to an admin for the slightest disagreement on a TP, and hopefully will become a bit more sensitive to the opinions/feelings of other editors whose POV simply don't align with their own. I recognize the problem because, in the past, I've had the occassional bout of overzealousness in the highly controversial AP topic area. Pretty much all of us have been there, but I'm very pleased to see that progress is being made because more admins are seeing that it takes 2 to Tango, and that realization alone will work wonders in helping to erradicate a big part of the problem. I applaud them for their excellent work in that area, and for taking on the risk of being pigeonholed with a particular political party because they didn't take one side over the other. Atsme 💬 📧 11:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, IHA and I have no sort of "official" mentor/mentee relationship like adopt-a-user, which is what it sounds like MJL is proposing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

GW, I adopted a highway once, but encountered some bumps along the way. Valereee, that's a very kind offer. Have you considered running for ArbCom? j/s Atsme 💬 📧 18:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

MJL, if IHA will agree to this, I'll strike my !vote. —valereee (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Well not the mentoring that is a good idea, but the use of mentoring as a way to get around a topic ban. A couple of months away from a hot button area they have trouble editing calmly is still beneficial to encyclopaedia. Mentor them in other areas or when/if they come back to this area. Otherwise it still smacks of allowing bad behaviour to occur because we support a particular POV. A topic ban of a few months is not a death kneel for an editor if they prove productive elsewhere. AIRcorn (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Well, I was hoping to be able to work with IHA in this topic area to find some constructive ways for them to be able to contribute to it. Can't really do that if they have a topic ban. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Then its not really a mentorship, but a way to help them edit in a topic area they have been shown to have a battleground attitude to. This is not a bad thing, but also not a reason to overlook their problematic behaviour. There are plenty of articles out there, many of which are much more important and in need of editors than the mess which is AP2. If they are serious about reforming then they should have no problems returning after a short break. Then you can help them in this topic area if the mentorship offer is only for AP2. AIRcorn (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Few people know this, but MJL was raised by the Qowat Milat, a sect of fierce Romulan warrior nuns known for absolute candor and binding themselves to lost causes. I'd support M mentoring anyone, but what I unfortunately don't see is a willing mentee. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Mentee. Please, Levivich, I thought you were better than this. EEng 06:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You always were an optimist. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else needs to be aware, I responded to MJL on my talk page and plan to discuss with them. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: After speaking with MJL today they have made it clear their understanding of your position on nonbinary pronouns and existence. For my misunderstanding and the text I have struck, I offer you an apology. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Also @MJL:, my apologies, I read the linked discussion you asked me to read and then got my brain turned round on your pronouns. I've corrected that in the previous comment. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you. If you are willing to work with MJL, then I have no issues what so ever. AP2 can be a tough area to jump into, I did the same thing when I first started. I hope to see you around. PackMecEng (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support mentorship for IHA as opposed to a TB. IHA clearly has the energy & intelligence to be a great editor. Better AGF would be a big help to them. It would be a shame to disrupt MJL's plan to work on that; they might not have time for mentorship 3 months down the line. It's rarely easy to help someone passionate about politics to see the good in the other side, yet there's few nobler undertakings. Joe "bipartisan" Biden's plans to do this are seen as pre-requisites to successful solutions to the other great issues of the age like Climate. Reducing polarisation isn't something Biden and his crew can achieve on their own, it needs many individual grass roots initiatives such as MJL's. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I was initially unsure of this plan but IHA's apology to PME pushed me off the fence into the "give it a chance" camp. I think that a promising start and hope that this works out for IHA the way it did for MJL. Springee (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I first encountered IHA while engaging in some editing at Madison Cawthorn, which I eventually left because it got caught in the bitter and petty "modern American politics Wikipedia-media edit-warring complex" (MAPWEC for short) and returned to more greener pastures. There were some intense content disputes on the talk page and as much as I found IHA's opponents' arguments to be lackluster or POV-ridden, I also got the impression that they should also not be editing modern American politics articles due to POV concerns. I think some mentoring would do them good, but AirCorn makes an invaluable point that we shouldn't be using that process to shelter editors from topic bans. In my opinion, IHA needs to disengage from modern American politics, whether voluntary or by community sanction, and focus on other stuff under mentorship. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by blanking page of Robbert Rietbroek

Editorwikifact is already notified to not blank the page. Seems like a single purposed account and possibly sock too. Sliekid (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC).

Response: after Administrator User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao flagged Robbert Rietbroek as an orphan article, consistent with Wikpedia:Merging policies I tried to Merge and Redirect this short article about the Quaker SVP into the Quaker Oats Company article to improve Wikipedia and avoid unnecessary orphan articles and left a comment on Administrator User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao user talk page to notify the Administrator of the edits. It appears that user Sliekid uses a sockpuppet user:SwashWafer, as both have made the exact identical edit on source page and made the same comment on source article discussion page. User Sliekid has twice removed my contributions to Quaker Oats Company article. Editorwikifact (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Sliekid, Please remember WP:NOTVAND, vandalism is intentionally defacing a page. Since you are by now edit warring, and neither of you was at any of the affected talkpages, here's my question: Do you manage to come to an agreement alone or do we need to protect the page in order to force you?. No comment from my side on the actual dispute here (though I have an opinion). Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Victor Schmidt for the clarification and reminder on what constitutes WP:NOTVAND. The intent here was to follow WP:Merging guidelines, avoid duplication and improve Wikipedia via a Merge and Redirect of the small source article which was flagged as an orphan by the administrator whilst protecting all of its content into the destination article. The Quaker Oats Company article already had a prior mention of the subject under key people. The content Quaker Oats Company#Leadership deleted by Sliekid has been restored and I will invite Sliekid on the talk:Quaker Oats Company page to discuss how to further improve Wikipedia content on the Quaker Oats Company and its executives without duplication. Editorwikifact (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Despite you citing WP:MERGE guidelines multiple times, you've also seemed to have not read it whatsoever yourself. Which says No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below. You're now continuing to edit war despite it being contested by another editor. Also re your edit summary; Victor Schmidt is not an administrator. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 20:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dylsss as per admin Victor Schmidt approved WP:Merging, I have merged Robbert's page to Quaker Oats Company. As the previous AFD decision was not fair by editors and admins. Seems, like they lack proper wiki understanding. So, As per now its best decision to keep it merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.102.167.145 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello whoever you are, again: (1) I am no administrator here (2) Individual administrators do not have the ability to decide what happens with a content (3) I do NOT share my opinion on this with you, since I dont consider me part of the dispute. Hope that helps. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As said, Victor Schmidt is not an admin, neither do admins have the power to decide what happens in a content dispute, they too have to abide by consensus. As per now its best decision to keep it merged is subjective, that's why merging should be discussed if someone has reverted the move. If you want to contest the outcome of an AFD, then that would be WP:DRV, but it has a specific purpose so please read the page. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

AFD decision was to keep the page. Not to merge the page. If you have problems with the AFD decision please follow WP:DRV. Don't just make disruptive edits by blanking the page. Sliekid (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Its quite clear that user @Dylsss:, :@Sliekid:, and :@Victor Schmidt: are socks as they are opposing my decision. Admins should take quick action and block them for indefinite to teach them a lesson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.102.167.145 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I guess Materialscientist is a sock as well for reverting your edits. Accusations of sockpuppetry with no evidence is not assuming good faith, if you have any actual evidence, you can present it at WP:SPI. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 11:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't actually said whether I think the content should be merged, nor have I reverted your edits on that page, and Victor Schmidt has said they don't consider themselves part of this dispute. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 11:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Dylsss, Sliekid, Victor Schmidt, Materialscientist, @191.102.167.145:. As per Nosebagbear on talk:Robbert Rietbroek#Merging, blanking, re-instating etc etc the Merge and Redirect isn't vandalism Sliekid. Replacing a page with a redirect whilst migrating all the content to the new page Quaker Oats Company#Leadership is not the same as intentionally blanking and WP:NOTVAND. Completing a Merge and Redirect as per Wikipedia:Merging policy always involves the source page be replaced with a Redirect. Rather than engaging in an edit war, there is a now a new proposal to merge the article Robbert Rietbroek into the Quaker Oats Company article and a discussion on talk:Robbert Rietbroek#Merger Proposal to avoid duplication of content and multiple articles on the same subject. I would invite others to contribute to this dialogue. Editorwikifact (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I should note that if you're going to start citing statements by other editors, EWF, you should do so in a balanced fashion. Taking the parts that support your actions and ignoring where issues have been identified (such as the bypassing of standard merging rules when it clearly would be controversial) is extremely poor form and makes me concerned about your GF in the remainder of the process. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from passing admin - I discovered this article and this ANI thread via a request for page protection. The page has been semi-protected for a week, the IP 191.102.167.145 has been blocked for 72 hours, and Editorwikifact came extremely close to being blocked. Please use the time that the page is protected to have a discussion about the proposed merge on the article's talk page. ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 04:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries that are either problematic or absent

I'm not sure what to do with Jay D. Easy (talk · contribs). They are a relatively seasoned user with plenty experience, yet some aspects of their behavior are troubling. They've been chastised by other editors a few times for nonsensical/insulting/rude edit summaries--see notes on their talk page by User:Tarl N., User:Doug Weller, User:7&6=thirteen, User:DMacks, in May 2019; for a lack of edit summaries by User:Eric in November 2019; for POINTy edit summaries by User:Pdebee in December 2019; for uncivil edit summaries by User:The ed17 in January 2020; for "inappropriate and uncivil accusations" by User:Richard Keatinge in April 2020; absence of edit summaries by User:Peaceray in October 2020, and again in November, also by User:Jetstreamer. Note their dismissive answer and a kind of threat in these responses.

I saw all this because I followed up on two edits yesterday: this and this. In both cases they are reverts of edits by User:PiercingEyes, and I can't see anything obviously wrong with them. I asked them about it yesterday after I reverted one of them, and got no response; the editor was back here, working, but didn't respond or self-revert, so I reverted the second one, and warned the editor. No response. I don't know exactly what I am looking for here; I am not eager to block, but there is a longterm pattern of uncollegiality and disruption here. Edit summaries like this one, that's really not cool, and this revert seems really unjustified to me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say final warning then block. Multiple patterns of refusal to discuss editorial concerns about their edits that are on-their-face problematic. Even if many/most of the un/poorly-explained ones wind up being okay, it's WP:DE to waste everyone else's time, especially given at least one other editor's note that there are content (not just ES) problems in some of the edits. Make it a clear requirement as a final opportunity to demonstrate collaborative behavior: "every edit must have a non-sarcastic plain-language explanation of the basis change being made." DMacks (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree, with an added stipulation - non-confrontational. It's been over a year, but I still remember my interaction with this editor - I was thoroughly unimpressed. There are editors who can make useful contributions, but for some reason feel a need to antagonize everyone. His dismissive "don't take it personally" was particularly inappropriate. Over the long term, I believe such editors are a net negative to the project. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Be helpful: explain is part of the Wikipedia:Editing policy. Both Twinkle & RedWarn use {{uw-delete1}} through {{uw-delete4im}}, & they both have {{uw-editsummary}} & {{uw-summary2}} available as well.

Although Help:Edit summary describes a leaving a summary as a good practice, it in itself is not a guideline or policy. It is clear in its advice Always provide an edit summary; It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit. Furthermore, in its hatnote, it states It may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting. I think that we also need to look at WP:CONDUCT.

Regarding not leaving edit summaries

• WP:CONSENSUS: deleting or changing broad amounts of material without explanation violates WP:EDITCONSENSUS & calls for the revert portion of WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• WP:Ownership of content not leaving edit summaries indicates an attitude of ownership that entitles one to make changes without explanation.

Regarding behavior towards others

• WP:Harassment: Jay D. Easy's User_talk:Jay D. Easy#Reversion on The Collector (TV_series) comment towards me why would you knowingly commit a bannable offense just to prove a point? Imagine if I hadn't re-reverted your flagrant violation of WP:LINKVIO certainly seemed to be a threat.
• WP:Civility Please see User_talk:Jay D. Easy#What's with your edit summaries? where rather than responding to an editor's request to explain an edit, Jay D. Easy instead attacks the other editor's edit. See also User_talk:Jay D. Easy#Inappropriate and uncivil accusations.

I think the best course of action would be simply for folks to consistently to revert Jay D. Easy's unexplained or misexplained edits with the summary "Unexplained changes. Please discuss on the talk page as part of the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle." & to add standard user warnings to their talk page. I do not think that this would be WP:BRD misuse because any edit that was adequately explained would past muster.

I believe that this would remedy things, as Jay D. Easy would either tire of getting reverted for unexplained or inadequately explained edits & would start providing worthwhile edits. Alternately, Jay D. Easy could be warned repeatedly to the point that a need for a temporay block would become self-evident. If the former is enough to ensure adherence to the Be helpful: explain editing policy, so much the better. If it takes the latter to enforce change, so be it.

Peaceray (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, Peaceray. There is no evidence this editor care about how others act in response to their edits or the long-term survivability of them. And BRD is not a strong standard (compared to other behavioral guidelines and policies); no need for what feels like a passive–aggressive approach as compared to more direct approaches. DMacks (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Since I posted this, Jay D. Easy has made a few dozen edits, moving articles, and saw fit to archive their talk page; it's here. In other words, they are as uncooperative and uncollegial as before. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Apologies, all. I'll start using common edit summaries more frequently from now on. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jay D. Easy: I'd be more comfortable (and I suspect the other people who have piped up as well) with a more specific description of what you believe you have been doing wrong and how you are going to fix it. Going with "common edit summaries" is not what we are looking for. We're looking for an end to disruptive behaviour, and I have yet to see an acknowledgement from you that you even understand what you are doing wrong. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the unclear edit summaries, unnecessarily harsh summaries, and sometimes altogether missing summaries. I admit that I'm frequently inclined to use tw as my catch-all edit summary, and that I take WP:ESL quite literal in that regard. Yet I also recognize that "more specific and useful edit summaries are preferred". I can't and won't try to justify my sometimes-insulting/rude/incivil edit summaries. I recognize these add nothing of value and only detract from what we're all here to do. Please know that I will accept and abide by any disciplinary action, if such is decided upon. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to have a clear final warning that if this behavior happens one more time, Jay will be blocked immediately. Why? Because what I wrote last January applies equally as well today as it did eleven months ago:

On the edit summaries, I'm glad to see that you recognize that there's a problem. However, you also recognized and apologized for your edit summaries just one month ago (December 2019) and have faced questions about them last February and May. And those are just the times someone felt compelled to leave a message. Will you commit to using civil and constructive edit summaries moving forward?

Notably, Jay never responded or answered my question. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is that we don't see what Human Resources Departments like to call a "get-well plan". That's a problem. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the defense of abbreviations when a fuller explanation is needed, but willingness to provide lengthier edit summaries when they're purely comments on other editors' competence, as Ed's link from January shows. Jay D Easy, you've been here long enough to know why edit summaries are important and why they shouldn't be abused. You say you recognize that. We need to hear you say you will start using edit summaries productively and stop using them disruptively. —valereee (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I thought he'd taken a break, with essentially no edits since his conversation here. He's back, and in spite of the above conversation, this suggests nothing has changed. I think administrative action is required. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ed, what do you think? I think not responding to questions and continuing disruptive/uncollegial behavior is blockworthy. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Drmies I would agree. This is a long-time editor whose problematic behavior has proceeded through a year and a half of warnings. Jay is clearly not paying attention to them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha Ed, but how do we get an admin to look at this? ;) Drmies (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Najgorszakomediaromantyczna

This editor made a proposal at Talk:Frédéric Chopin following an adjustment he had made in the article text, which was reverted. The consensus was against this editor; in the course of the discussion he restored his text on more than one occasion, and was issued by another editor with a vandalism warning. He has since posted a repetition of pointless and irrelevant vandalism warnings on my user talk page, which I have removed; these are sometimes accompanied by apparent threats. (see here). At the time of writing I have removed six of these in the space of not much more thn an hour. Can something be done to restrain this fellow? Thanks --Smerus (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

From my side, I can only state that this user is being reverting my edits with no reason (or the reason that is his POV); according to Chopin he ignored both-sided discussion, just removing my edition (though, my edition was accepted few days back and I was given the "thanks" notification by some user). Then, I agreed my opponents view, as u can see at the Smerus's talk link given, and left info with my complaints at the Smerus's page. He just ignores it, call it rubbish (trash) and deletes it; though it it not okay, because he should leave all messages left on his talk page and reply (or ignore it) on my user's page. I think it is not okay, the seniority between me and Smerus does not matter, cause we work on the same rules. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

And he has done it again, even though he has been advised not to by a third party editor to whom he made a complaint about me.--Smerus (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It was her opinion, not a binding judgment! I fight for justice - according to the rules, the talk page is owned by Wikipedia and you cannot remove content as you like; can I delete my entire talk page? No! Don't cry, just take the criticism on your chest! Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:BLANKING. Smerus may remove your messages as he sees fit. Favonian (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok, sorry I get it. Thanks for the info, I will not be reverting it anymore. It was a substantive answer. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruption and personal attacks by Biomax20

• Biomax20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Queer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biomax20 appears to have an axe to grind on Talk:Queer.

If YOU dont like MY opposition to the ridiculous changes to meaning, may i recommend you go do something else with your life? ... Excuse me? What are you supposed to be? Gestapo? Do you own this public forum? This is not a personal dislike, this is opposition. I will not be silenced.

 

Also see the user's talk page and [118]. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

LI added a legitimate comment on the talk section ( which i am under the impression is a public talk area ) to discuss a certain subject, Then this EvergreenFir guy comes along, slaps me with a warning saying " Please stop the pov/pointy edits.", then goes to the public talk area and says: "please stop using this as a forum to express your dislike for the subject.". excuse me?

You @EvergreenFir: are welcome to go read actual / factual definition and 'Original' meaning of the word queer in any dictionary and encyclopedia,

rather than this new enforced edits by members of wikipedia such as yourself that dictate things like "please stop using this as a forum to express your dislike for the subject." ? What is this? Fascist Germany? Yes this is not the first or last person i get into a confrontation with. Primarily because some information is just plain wrong, and there legitimately seems to be a real effort by some people to enforce a particular view. Biomax20 (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, this is the confrontational reply you got after you gave me a ' Discretionary Sanction Notification with comment "Please stop the pov/pointy edits." ... how about, please stop dictating how people should think? Biomax20 (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as the information in the article is supported by citations from reliable sources, then it really doesn't much matter whether you agree with it or not. If you can find other reliable sources which agree with your PoV on this, then they can be added to the article as a counterpoint, as long as they aren't WP:FRINGE. Your bluster on talk pages isn't going to get you what you want, it's only likely to get you sanctioned in some way in the long run, so your energy would be better spent in find those citations you need. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Well said, There was no cited sources, and i added "Citation needed" to a specific article, but @EvergreenFir: there got triggered on another article where i removed the word "Disparaging", and initiated a edit war. And issued warnings because its apparently both articles regarding LGBT are populated by Dictator editors. Biomax20 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's funny that you added CN into the lead and called a statement "non factual" (despite being supported by references later in the article), but then are calling people dictators because you expect everyone to ignore the WP:MAINSTREAM consensus around the word "queer." Wikipedia doesn't care that you don't agree with the talk page rules and reality doesn't care about whatever grievances you have with these topics. —{Canucklehead} 01:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to observe that declaring someone else to be "triggered" has never, in my experience, advanced a reasoned conversation in any way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to, based on my own humbling interactions with them, solemnly and respectfully declare EvergreenFir and conifers in general "too cool" to be triggered, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: but Triggered Trees would be a fun band name. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it appears that the user does have a strong POV which may make it hard for them to recognise what is and isn't emotionally laden or neutral. Characterising this edit to Homosexual agenda as "Disruptive emotionally charged editing. Non factual. Non encyclopedic." is a little over the top for an edit that a) restored a neutral descriptive term that has been in the article for a long time, b) removed an inappropriate "citation needed" tag in the lede, for information that is well-sourced in the body, and c) removed an unsourced assertion, also from the lede. Biomax20, you are free to think whatever you like, but that does not mean that it's OK to use Wikipedia as a discussion forum; furthermore, you may be interested to read up a bit on semantic shift – words do change their meanings, you know. (Presumably you don't use the word "meat" to refer to all kinds of food?) --bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall Sir Pterry had a few words to say on semantic shift. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Very difficult to see Biomax20 as a net positive. It’s not just related to this topic, see also their ranting here. —JBL (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with that analysis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @JayBeeEll and Beyond My Ken: Yep, most of Biomax200's interactions on talk pages has been yelling at editors or ranting at imaginary editors, almost always assuming bad faith. There are enough personal attacks in the most recent incident alone (calling editors Gestapo or Dictator editors) to warrant an incivility block. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user- edit warring and disruptive edits

• Band1301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question has been doing plenty of disruptive edits and edit warring, the edit warring mostly seemingly at Template:Nicktoon creators. Most of their disruptive edits have to do with if a show is actually classified as a 'Nicktoon' or not, to which they've been told multiple times that it is not, yet they continue to add the show into Nicktoon articles despite what they've been told and the countless warnings they've received on their talk page. They've also recently claimed that I've been, "overly pushy".

I also don't seem to think they full understand how there are image guidelines to follow, given the countless warnings on their talk page regarding unspecified/unlicensed images over the past months. Not quite sure how this should be handled, especially given all their replies regarding the warnings of vandalism or disruptive edits claim that they have not done any disruptive edits or vandalism. On a side note, many of their responses don't seem to make sense at all, such as, "But I never vandalized my editing! This part of my choice needed to come." or, "That image isn't my plan of a creation." in regards to an image they uploaded to Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Another thing I just wanted to point in regards to a lot of their things not making sense... some of their edits also have an edit summary regarding a found or added "fact", even while adding an image (such as here) or just changing information with no source or actual explanation (such as here). Magitroopa (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Band1301 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)But Nick helped in canada production for Ollie! That last ending logo for it was caught.

Yet we have a source clearly stating, "Produced by Nelvana, the 26-episode, 2D-animated series combines the struggles of tween life with the responsibility of controlling an entire dimension of monsters."- nothing regarding Nickelodeon or Nickelodeon Canada. Yet, you still continue adding in the info. And what does, "That last ending logo for it was caught" even mean? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Magitroopa (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeated changes of style contrary to WP rules

User Chesipiero appears to be on a mission to change dates into boldface letters in aviation articles. I stumbled upon that after reverting such an edit, namely Northern Air Cargo. As a reaction, he wrote to me on my User talk:Uli Elch#Northern Air Cargo: "Hi, if you take a look at the other airlines you'll see that the date are in bold. What will you do? Will you remove the bold from all the others?" (18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

Following that, I checked some of his previous edits and found out that all airlines he referred to with "all the others" have recently been changed to bold face exclusively by himself, not by any other editor. Diff links, examples:

• Aeromarine West Indies Airways
• Aero Virgin Islands
• Air Florida
• National Airlines (N8)
• Western Global Airlines
• USA Jet Airlines

This is contrary to WP rules, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#When not to use boldface: "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text."

Imho this is a "chronic behavioral problem". Please be so kind and inform the user about the necessity to adhere to commonly agreed rules and standards. Thank you. Sincerely --Uli Elch (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So, fix the articles and, if necessary, warn the editor. You can use {{uw-mos}} for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And, once you determined that issue, did you continue to discuss with the editor in question, perhaps after WP:BOLDly having fixed the problem? ANI is the last resort and this is nowhere near an issue that needed to be brought here at this time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Presumably you meant to say WP:UNBOLDly having fixed the problem? EEng 21:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

please review my 3hr block of 86.3.71.69‎

I reverted an edit by 86.3.71.69‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The IP in question then started going through my edits on a reversion spree. I blocked 3 hrs as prevention of ongoing disruption, but since I'm involved I'm bringing it here for review. (Normally I'd give something like this a few days if I werent involved, but 3 hrs was a minimal preventative measure.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good block. obviously. Keep an eye on 86.3.68.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

yeah, it's a Virgin cable modem, they tend to rotate IPs every few days I think? - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hoaxing: Chester Thompson on drums. Range of IPs from Texas

Somebody using IPs from Texas has been hoaxing music articles for a while, recently adding Chester Thompson as drummer, and previously inserting Phil X falsely into personnel sections. This person was blocked by JBW for two years as Special:Contributions/99.116.10.239, and blocked by Widr for two years as Special:Contributions/50.78.35.86. Alexf blocked the IP Special:Contributions/2600:387:0:9A2:0:0:0:59 last February. The recent IPs don't fall into a convenient range for a rangeblock, so I'm asking for someone with more experience to figure out how we stop this vandal without too much collateral damage. Recent IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Dec 2020 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:2A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
• Dec 2020 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:C1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
• Nov 2020 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:3B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:A5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:A3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:8A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
• Oct 2020 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))

Update: Widr rangeblocked the /64 for three months. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• At least one other IP address has been used recently: 107.77.217.25, used for somewhat over 7 hours yesterday. I would be surprised if there aren't others.
• Binksternet, you say that Widr rangeblocked the /64, but in fact the IP addresses you listed above fall into three separate /64 ranges, and Widr has blocked only one of them.
• It can be very difficult to deal with this situation, as even if a range is blocked the editor is likely to come back on another range. However, a point which remarkably many administrators seem to overlook is that if almost all the editing from a range is disruptive, then it really doesn't matter whether it's all from one person or not: a block may be reasonable. ("We can't block the range because many constructive editors edit there" is reasonable, but so often we get "but we can't block the range, because many editors other than the one I am investigating edit there", irrespective of whether those others are constructive or not.) Looking at the two /64 ranges that Widr hasn't blocked, not only did I see that most editing was somewhere on the spectrum from downright vandalism to not particularly constructive, but I also found that both ranges had been blocked earlier this year because of the disruptive editing. I have blocked them again. That is unlikely to completely stop the vandal, but it may reduce the attacks somewhat, and even if it doesn't the amount of benefit from stopping other disruptive editors will be greater than any collateral damage to potentially useful editing.
• Sometimes a hoaxer who repeatedly adds nonsense about one person can be discouraged by an edit filter, but that doesn't seem to be a viable possibility here, as there may well be editors adding legitimate mentions of Chester Thompson on drums to articles. That is unless someone can come up with specific aspects of the edits about Chester Thompson that single out this editor, but that looks unlikely to me.
• An IP range that covers all of the addresses that Binksternet has listed is 2600:387:A:0:0:0:0:0/55, but looking at the editing history I decided that blocking that range really would run the risk of causing an unacceptable amount of collateral damage, so that's out of the question, I think.
• Much as I would like to have an answer to this problem, I'm afraid I don't think there is one. The best we can do, it seems to me, is to play whackamole by reverting and blocking each new IP address as it comes up. The sooner a newly recruited IP address is blocked the better, so please do report to administrators as soon as you see a new one. Obviously there is a potential advantage in contacting an administrator who already knows about the situation, so please feel welcome to contact me, though obviously I won't always be able to get onto it right away, so don't necessarily regard telling me as the only thing to do.
• The short version of all that I have written above is that there is no really satisfactory way of dealing with this kind of situation, but blocking and reverting can help. JBW (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

After I wrote the above message, it occurred to me that my comments about edit filters were based on the assumption that we wanted one to block the edits, but it may be worth considering one which merely records the edits, so that legitimate edits about Chester Thompson will not be stopped, but we will get alerts as to which IP addresses to check for possible recent use by the vandal. Can anyone who knows more about edit filters than I do comment on that idea? JBW (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking more of the disruptive IP ranges. I don't know more about edit filters so I will refrain from commenting on that. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A new IP is active today, Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:95, doing the same stuff. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

188.252.196.122

I believe this is the same IP who reported me at ANI, which was a failure, but that is besides the point. I would like to focus on the personal attacks and harrassement through hounding they made at Talk:Domenico Losurdo, including personal attacks such as accusing other users of allegedly sympathising with Stalinism or alleging that BunnyyHop and I were conspiring against them, even though I had several disagreements with BunnyyHop at Talk:Marxism–Leninism.

The IP wrote "I'm not accusing anyone of being a convinced Stalinist nor do I want to draw others into this discussion, but on the other hand, I can see that you and Bunny hop are cooperating very well, whether consciously or unconsciously", implying there is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry, again without evidence and ignoring I have actually disagreed with the other user on several points elsewhere here. This is not consistent with what they actually wrote, without evidence, namely that "[t]his page is constantly edited and vandalised by users who sympathize Stalinism" and "[t]his is being done by users who are of Stalinist background. For example, the last time the article was edited it was by an user called User:Davide King who under the same name ('David King') promotes Stalinism on Quora and has the picture of Stalin as his profile picture there." They state this as fact.

The IP falsely and quite literally accused me of being a "Stalinist" (so much for "not accusing anyone of being a Stalinist"), without evidence, when I do not really use Quora, I am not even sure I actually created an account, I only log in through Gmail, I did not make any question or answered any and this was based on the similarly of the name ("David King" and "Davide King", even though my username is Davide King; by this perverse logic and unsubstantiated accusation, am I a sockpuppet of User:David King?). Finally, the IP engaged in edit warring and they were reverted by at least four editors, including 4thfile4thrank and C.Fred. I just noticed now they had been already warned at the talk page and even blocked for it, but they continue edit warring and making personal attacks or falseand misleading insinuations.

The "Stalinist" allegations are certainly personal attacks ("Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.") I do not known if hounding me on Quora, even though that is not actually me, is a violation but the "Stalinist" allegations are certainly personal attacks; and to think they have been already warned for edit warring and attacking other editors here, here and here by C.Fred, yet today they continued to edit war with a misleading edit summary and more personal attacks and false accusations such as "I see you're quite familiar with the mechanisms of Wikipedia and how they may be used to neutralise 'unfavorable' facts." Either the IP is given one last warning and stop doing this, or they should be sanctioned. Davide King (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The IP appears to be a SPA whose only interest is in the Domenico Losurdo article, and who is editing that article with a very definite PoV, and apparently against talk page consensus. Combined with the personal attacks described by Davide King about, I think that adds up to a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Red Rose 13's personal insult

@Red Rose 13: took the discussion too personally, and insulted me by calling me a bully who seeks to destroy his enemies. The user also stated that I have limited perception and called me a liar. Can you give a warning to this user? --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: It is important to note that he is a bully and I just realized it a few minutes ago. I was seriously wanting to report him. I have the intention of wanting to work peacefully with other editors. I have been editing for 9 years. He is constantly fighting, resisting opposing views, editing warring, falsely accusing me of things, going after references he doesn't agree with, deletes them, talks down to me and is very disruptive. My intent was to bring structure and a balance to the article. I was hoping someone from conflict resolution would step in because he keeps making it personal. I was thinking of stopping editing because I don't feel safe and because no one is coming help. But then I reconsidered that what I am doing for this page is too important. So now that we are here, I can report him.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you and I agreed in mid-October 2020 that we will discuss any inclusion in the article. I agreed and brought all of my proposals to the talk page (which can be seen in the talk page's archives). Immediately after our agreement, you rearranged the entire article, deleted some major parts, inserted new sections - all of that without any discussion whatsoever. Also, you continue to do so to the present day, continuously bypassing our agreement. Even a third user recognised your disruptive editing and hypocritical behavior [119]. Talking of edit warring, it's enough to see the article's history and see mine and your behaviour in that matter. Regarding the sources, I have a right to challenge the sources I consider unreliable. Regarding the balance of the article... is this the balance you're talking about here or POV-pushing you're mentioning on the article's talk page? [120] --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a sample list of accusatory comments from the talk page:

(1) Red Rose, because of her bias, is honestly not interested in the opinions of other contributors
(2) Red Rose didn't bother one bit to comment on anything further. She was satisfied with the status quo
(4) Stop being borderline hypocritical
(5) I think you're finding random quotes on the Internet, and just use the source their using.
(6) Red Rose 13's misuse of sources (accusatory post title)
(7) "Red Rose cites page 71 (out of blue), and references the same page where they mention that Bishop Hnilica quoted Pope John Paul II." (ignorant accusations)
(8) Stop vandalizing my effing little presentation (when I put my comment at the top of his accusatory post)
(9) Are you sure you're not quoting from http://www.totus2us.com/vocation/blessed-virgin-mary/our-lady-of-medjugorje/ (after I gave him information about the book I am using as a reference.)
(10) I'm amazed how you don't see that to win and to triumph are synonymous even in English. ...You're obviously lacking basic translating skills. (even when it had nothing to do with the him not translating the name of book correctly.)

• I would like to continue editing on this page but I need someone to stop Governor Sheng from his continuous badgering of me, my references, authors, subjects. I am becoming a nervous wreck and I don't think editing on Wikipedia should cause so much stress. I need a moderator that can keep him in his place. Someone also who is an excellent editor and can settle disputes. Perhaps you understand why I don't feel safe and after a month of badgering, it gets exhausting. My housemate is concerned about the stress this is causing me.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear I caused you any discomfort. That was not my intention.

(1) I really think you're biased. That's my own opinion. You're free to disagree with it. [121]

(2) I don't remember this comment in particular, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

(4) "Stop being borderline hypocritical" is a comment from another user [122], whom I quoted.

(5) You do find random quotes on the internet.

Example - [123]

Comparison - [124]

The Internet:

In line with Roman Catholic tradition, Pope John Paul II considers the Medjugorje phenomenon an issue for the local hierarchy. It is, however, common knowledge, that the Pope is sympathetic to the Marian site. In a meeting with Bishop Paul Hnilica, the Pope reportedly said: "If I were not the Pope, I would probably have visited Medjugorje by now." During a meeting with the Superior General of the Franciscan Order, the Holy Father asked: "All around Medjugorje bombs have been falling, and yet Medjugorje itself was never damaged. Is this not perhaps a miracle of God?"

This article was taken from the November 1996 issue of "Inside the Vatican." Subscriptions: Inside the Vatican, Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, 3050 Gap Knob Road, New Hope, KY 40052, 1-800-789-9494, Fax: 502-325-3091.

Red Rose:

During a meeting with the Superior General of the Franciscan Order, the Holy Father asked: "All around Medjugorje bombs have been falling, and yet Medjugorje itself was never damaged. Is this not perhaps a miracle of God?"

Also, you quoted "Czernin, Marie (2004). "Medjugorje and Pope John Paul II – An Interview with Bishop Hnilica". Germany: Politik und Religion (PUR).", when it's actually this website http://www.medjugorje.hr/en/news/medjugorje-and-pope-john-paul-ii---an-interview-with-bishop-hnilica,1132.html. Or you own the magazine Politik und Religion and speak German?

(6) Again, this is my oppinion. You're free to disagree.

(7) Didn't you told me on the talk page that you mistakenly quoted page 71 and said it was your mistake? So I was right, wasn't I?

(8) Yes. I added a title on a talk page, and you put your comment as an opening one, referring all the time to my comments as "my little presentation". This is not something one usually does. It looks like you created a section.

(9) Well, are you?

(10) Excuse me. You challenged my entire translation of Croatian sources based on your idea that I'm using google translate because I translated pobijediti as "to win", when her book was officialy translated as "to triumph". I nicely explained to you why that doesn't matter so much. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Governor Sheng is capable of translating Croatian. The example given on the talk page of the supposed use of Google Translate is for Moje srce će pobijediti being translated to 'My heart will win'. That's an accurate translation. You wouldn't generally translate pobijeda to 'triumph'. For example, pobijedili smo utakmicu would translate to we won the match, not we were triumphant in the match. However, if the book title in English says 'triumph', then use 'triumph'. I am not wasting my time scouring the article history for translated material (particularly given the edit-warring). If you have something specific, then post it below (I likely won't respond today, though, as I'm preparing to go to bed).

Other comments: Red Rose, you do not have the competence to judge who is or is not capable of reading, writing, speaking, or translating from Croatian. English sources are preferred, not mandatory. I am incensed by your attempts to portray Sheng as a danger to you. If anything, they've been unnecessarily patient with your insulting conduct. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

User justifying bombing of civilians + other responses

User: @User178198273998166172:

article: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

Archive 8

Of course 'Liberated' is extremely biased. All these towns now have an Armenian population, and they don't feel 'liberated' by the Azeri armed forces killing them in their homes.

And the Armenians have done nothing close to this, and a missile hitting a residential area in Ganja is not as 'deliberate' as shooting dead an unarmed prisoner from a few meters away and Scud missiles are known for their inaccuracy.

Archive 12

They view the Azeris as brutes who execute and behead PoW's and execute civilians in their homes, not as friendly 'liberators'.

Archive 13

Reckless? Sure, but this was retaliation for Stepanakert being bombed with cluster bombs by the Azeris. That too was reckless and provocative. What we can proof is a war crime are two Armenian PoW's being executed after capture and captured taped on video for all to see. We have evidence for that despicable war crime, thanks to the sadistic soldiers who filmed it.

He justifies twice the bombing of Azerbaijani cities, and other respons accusing Azerbaijan to execute civilians in their homes. Serious actions should be taken against this user. Beshogur (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Non admin here. How is expressing an opinion sanctionable? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Asking for a larger rangeblock on Cambridge Canada vandal

Recent activity by the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cambridge Canada vandal shows that he has been shifting to different /64 ranges within a larger group. Can we block the larger group? Perhaps the answer is to block the /52 or /48, for instance Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:6000:0:0:0:0:0/52. Note that the /32 is already subject to a partial block, preventing access to the article Longo's, which is probably not the vandal in question, but someone else in the range. The most recently active /64 is Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:6000:3DA:0:0:0:0/64. Back in 2015 I referred to this guy as the box office bomb vandal, and he reverted to form yesterday with this edit focusing on a bomb film. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

79.100.19.9 – BLP "muslims" category issue

• 79.100.19.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Large-scale addition of unsourced categories defining BLPs as muslims with over 250 edits yesterday and today alone. I warned them during their previous editing spree about a week ago. I think a block and rollbacking their edits is required. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

98.186.219.252 changing company name in The Jim Henson Hour

BLOCKED

Meep meep meep meep meep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

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

In The Jim Henson Hour, this user vandalizing the page with changing corporate name of the production company. I have reported it to AIV but has no response from administrators. Please block that IPs. 36.68.232.33 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandal has been blocked for one week by ReaderofthePack. — Maile (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

User:Gabriel The Epic Gaming Champion1234

BLOCKED

We've replaced their regular editing privileges with a 48-hour block, let's see if they notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• diff1
• diff2

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

• diff3

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

• diff4
• diff5

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

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

Update

Doesn't appear that an attempt to reach out on their talk page made a difference. Clear vandalism and disruption here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Simon Adler for reaching out to the editor and GoneIn60 for keeping an eye on it. Looks like we'll need admin intervention after all. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 48h, they should be able at least to notice they are blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all! Appreciate the swift response. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Occupational burnout edit war between Iss246 and coastalalerts.

WRONG VENUE

AN3R is thataway → - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

On the occupational burnout page two editors Iss246 and Coastalalerts are engaged in a brutal week long edit war with an eye watering number of reverts between them. Please resolve this. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Patriciamoorehead: This would probably be better placed at WP:AN3R. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then. It has been reported at AN3R Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Coastalalerts reported by User:M.Bitton (Result:. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Edit warring, WP:COI, WP:SELFSOURCE

• Moolaramovijayathe (talk · contribs)

User edit warred at Raghavendra Tirtha, then hopped over to Raghavendra stotra and added the same content there. Given that the citing is to WorldCat and doesn't clarify pages, it makes sense to confirm that the content is not copied. These edit summaries suggest self-citing [125]; [126]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Graysonrpollard

FLOUNCED

Editor in question retired after being parblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Graysonrpollard (talk · contribs) has been trying to edit the article on the Rhodesian Front for some time now. Their pattern of editing is largely disruptive including persistent removal of reliable cited material and possible WP:LOUTSOCK editing. See the following diffs, dates and time are in IST.

• 09:14, 27 November 2020, Removal of the descriptor "white nationalist" from the article, which is cited to three reliable scholarly sources. Warned on 09:16, 27 November 2020
• 09:21, 27 November 2020, Removal of the same for a second time. Warned on 09:23, 27 November 2020. This prompts them to send a message on my talk page to which I reply that they at least need to achieve a consensus for such changes and how to do so. (see User talk:Tayi Arajakate § Attempting to remove political bias from the article "Rhodesian Front").
• 02:23, 28 November 2020, IP removal of the same within 24 hours. They do provide a reasoning on the talk page of the article on 05:27, 29 November 2020, although one that is grossly inadequate. I notice this on 10:13, 5 December 2020 and revert it back.
• 10:49, 5 December 2020, Removal of the same. They claim that the IP address is not theirs, along with accusations of censorship and political bias. (see User talk:Tayi Arajakate § Please keep your political bias off Wikipedia.)

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Graysonrpollard from Rhodesian Front for a week, in the hope they can discuss this at the talk page. Graysonrpollard, please don't cherrypick sources or other discussions; the Ian Smith talk page discussion is not a valid reason to remove "White supremacy" from the Rhodesian Front infobox since, for starters, the third opinion only talks about categorization. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I've restored "white supremacy" in the infobox on seeing that there is a concluded RfC on this already (Talk:Rhodesian Front § RfC about "Ideology" list in Infobox). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Update: Graysonrpollard appears to have retired. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

User:Mache2007

Mache2007 (talk · contribs) has been continuously disruptive on the Miss Universe 2020 article after repeated warnings. WikiProject Beauty Pageants has long suffered from uncontrolled vandalism, and we must finally begin taking efforts to rid the project of this. Mache2007 keeps adding countries to the "Contestants" section of the article even though their contestants have not been crowned yet, and are changing the number of contestants selected as if these countries actually have picked a representative, both a WP:CRYSTAL violation and just blatantly incorrect information; we have a specific section for countries with planning national pageants, yet they are ignoring this section and the WikiProject's standards (Difs: Dif 1, Dif 2, Dif 3 (unrelated adding of unsourced information), Dif 4, . One mistake would be understandable, but they have been warned numerous times, blocked already previously, and have shown no interest in improving their editing. They additionally keep removing the hometown of one contestant, and directing the link to a disambiguation page instead of the actual article (Difs: Dif 5, Dif 6. There are endless examples of Mache2007 being a disruptive editor here on Wikipedia, but I do not have the time to list every disruptive thing they have done. Wikipedia and the WikiProject would be better off with them not editing at this point. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Mache2007 has 674 edits, all but maybe half a dozen to Miss Universe 2020 and Miss Universe 2019. The handful of others are messages on their own talk page, which paint a picture of a young, non-English editor who believes they have the "right" to add any information they please and don't need to provide sources for things that are "obvious", but what's obvious to them are BLP violations to us. I have blocked them from editing Miss Universe 2020 indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Series of Mobile edits from IP user

RANGEBLOCKED

We're done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

On the pages for Luis Arce and Jeanine Áñez, there has been an edit war over removing the word (interim) from the sidebar. It's now been removed and reverted five times. No reason give, no response to calls for talk or on the user page of he editor. There has been similar behavior on other pages not related to Bolivia. The mobile edits create multiple usernames but it seems likely to be the same person. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

2601:143:8002:300::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for one month. This disruption spans numerous articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Long-term pattern of adding nothing but unsourced material to sanctioned articles

Ruben192 (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice for repeated additions of unsourced material in areas subject to sanction, once in 2017 on WP:ARBMAC material and in September 2020 by @Acroterion: on WP:ARB911 related articles.

I issued a final warning for continuing to add unsourced material on a Mohamed Atta, another 911 article, on October 3. I filed a report on AIV yesterday for this latest unsourced addition but the report was declined.

Looking at this editor's history, every edit since the release of the September block had been to add unsourced material to 911 articles. I think a topic ban or block is needed. Toddst1 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocking. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits so infrequently, may be a while. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Racist vandalism at The Squad (United States Congress)

CLOSED

handled —valereee (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Six times in the last few hours IP editor 2600:1702:2060:4c70:80b6:1458:676c:7fd has inserted racist vandalism in the article The Squad (United States Congress). The user has been blocked, but could someone RevDel the 12 edits (including 6 reverts)? Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

On my way --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability done the job. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Aspersions by Beyond My Ken

This appears to have been an honest misunderstanding, for which Beyond My Ken has apologised, and from which technical lessons on image sizing have also been learned. ~ mazca ^talk 00:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Editor: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)

Summary of issue: Violation of WP:NPA (specifically WP:ASPERSIONS) against Skjoldbro (talk · contribs), relating to Skjoldbro's reasons for amending the size of images on the Nazi Party article.

• Reversion 1, [127] with the summary Too large. The editor is only here to advertise Nazism by having logos and photos as large as possibel/
• Reversion 2, [128] with the summary WP:UNDUE glorification of Nazi organization)

I have approached Beyond My Ken on their talk page, where the relevant reply extract is The editor is obsessed with making the logos of Nazi and Fascist organization as large as possible, the same with infobox photos of Nazi generals. It amounts glorification, and is WP:UNDUE. Beyond My Ken has not provided any evidence or further reasoning as to why this is. Alleging that an editor is 'obsessed' with promoting Nazism is clearly an extremely serious claim, and I would clearly support sanctions on the grounds of WP:POVPUSHING if evidence is presented that shows that is indeed the case, but without that evidence there is no option but to assume the accusations are unfounded.

NB: I was torn as to whether ANI was the more appropriate venue or whether WP:EWN would have been appropriate given the game of ping pong that is going on over the edits, but it's ultimately the aspersions that have led me here. Best, Darren-M talk 19:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of displaying logos in the infobox is not to advertise the organizations involved, but to provide our readers with some pertinent visual information about them. To this end, I have consistently reduced the size of logos in the infoboxes of companies, colleges, political parties and other organizations to make sure that they're large enough to be seen, yet not so large as to act as advertising in violation of WP:PROMO.

(The argument is made that the default size should be kept, but how large the logo renders visually varies wildly depending on its native aspect ratio, so frequently the default has to be overwritten -- and the "default" is just that, not a preferred size, but a default size. There's a reason we have the capability of overwriting it.)

Throughout this activity, the ONLY pushback I have ever received - with the exception of a college article or two -- is from Skjoldbro, and then only in infoboxes of Nazi and Fascist organization, and photographs of Nazi generals. Given that, I suggest that WP:NONAZIS is pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

BMK, by setting the size to "125px" you are making the image larger for some mobile users. The exact opposite of what you intend, for some of our readers. There's a reason MOS:IMGSIZE says don't set image sizes to px. Additionally, for MOS:ACCESS reasons, some readers will need the image to be larger because they can't see as well. What looks good to you, on your screen, at 125px, doesn't work for every reader around the world. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't see that on my iPhone, where images, no matter what size they are marked as, are displayed full-screen.

In Template:Political party, for instance, if no size is specified, the image is displayed at "upright=0.8". If your comment is to the effect that I should use upright settings instead of px settings, I have no problem with that, and can firmly commit to doing so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be for the best. I learned that (upright) from The Master. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to mention me in this context, as I'm always willing to share my rectitude with others, though of course I wouldn't want to thrust it upon anyone against their will. EEng 21:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Following BMK's firm commitment to upright and EEng sharing his rectitude, I see a rectifying retraction below resulting in a relaxing resolution. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see the participants are no longer refractory. EEng 00:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, looking at Skjoldbro's contribs, it is far more likely that these are simply the only articles you overlap on - Skjoldbro clearly has an interest in military articles. I'm not seeing anything here so far that justifies the comments you've made. Unless you can provide something more concrete (edit summaries, insertion of POV text into articles, or so on), I think you would be better off retracting the claims and apologising. Best, Darren-M talk 21:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wow. The discussion drifted away from that, but a retraction and an apology would be in order. Those comments were poorly chosen. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since I trust Deepfriedokra's judgment, I will follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• [129], [130], and I have requested oversight, revdel or strikethrough of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, Thank you for your good grace here; I am glad this did not need a formal administrative intervention. Best, Darren-M talk 22:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Substitute administrator requested

The administrator who handled the July 2020 sockpuppetry case regarding KevinPR82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and to whom this matter would have been referred has retired. As a result, I am asking that one or more administrators review the editor's history and subsequent behavior. Following the sockpuppetry case, the editor has been sporadically editing from the IP 72.43.48.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), logging in to edit protected pages a number of times: [131][132][133][134][135]. (The editor has logged in to make some edits to unprotected pages as well.) Now, the editor has logged in to repeat a reverted, factually incorrect (12,406.68 x 2 > 24,229.76) edit by the IP: IP (October) and account (December). Among the potentially disruptive behaviors is repeatedly replacing "Washington, D.C.": [136][137][138] (post-July sample). The account and IP talk pages show a history of unsourced and disruptive edits as well as edit warring. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a bit of a hobby of editing pages on Wikipedia among other cites. I also have two separate IP address locations - one in New Hampshire and one in New York. Keene, NH is my regular place of residence but I am currently staying with family on Long Island, NY for the holiday season. My time spent at each location is based on factors unrelated to my editing of Wikipedia. If you would like me to sign onto my KevinPR82 account every time I wish to make edits (even when the website is open for general editing), I will try to remember that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.189.67 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Gypsy Taub

• Gypsy Taub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sa57arc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I do not know what is going on here but these comments [139] along with the edit warring with Wallyfromdilbert in the article[140] and others[141] suggest that Sa57arc should be topic banned or blocked and several of his contributions rev-deleted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I revision-deleted the talk page comments, and the block is probably due, but this is now midnight in my timezone, and I do not have time to determine whether the user also had disruptive activities elsewhere, so I will leave this to another admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Taub is a controversial figure. Her BLP has gone through a lot of improvement lately to be more NPOV. Note also the new essay WP:STP. I also was unaware of WP:BLPPUBLIC. I have put in a request on the corresponding talk page that we quantify what "a multitude" of WP:R really means. I am looking for easy conflict resolution.--Sa57arc (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I also have additional concerns with Sa57arc's edits at that page, and I am linking to several diffs of unsourced information that still seem seriously problematic, such as [142] [143] [144] [145]. Please also note that this editor has an apparent COI with Sam Sloan, and there is a discussion at WP:COIN#Sam Sloan. Given this comment left by Sa57arc on my talk page (and edit summaries such as this), I think Sa57arc may also have a COI with Taub. After commenting on my talk page, they started editing the Taub article and adding significant unsourced and potentially defamatory content to Taub's article, as well as insisting on adding poorly sourced allegations of criminal conduct. The editor subsequently made changes to the Gothamist article (repeatedly removing the word "blog" from it) and the WP:BLP policy [146] as part of their effort to get the criminal allegations into the Taub article. Given some of the personal disputes that seem to be furthered in articles such as Sexual Freedom League by Sam Sloan and other IPs or banned accounts with similar editing activity to that account, I think this may also be an extension of some personal grudge. The editor seems to be becoming increasingly disruptive and I am concerned with WP:NOTHERE as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an editor who added "Drug abuser" to the "Occupation" field of a BLP infobox and posted a lengthy rant on a BLP talk page that is packed with BLP violations, sarcasm and innuendo all intended to defame Gypsy Taub. The talk page comments were so egregious and inflammatory that they had to be revision deleted. This is really quite stunning misconduct by Sa57arc. Taub is a controversial figure but our BLP policy applies to her precisely as much as it does to every other living person. I think that Sa57arc needs to be blocked indefinitely, unless or until they acknowledge their grave policy violations and offer ironclad assurances that nothing even remotely like this will ever occur again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support indef/CBAN on the basis of the edits identified by Cullen328. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Compromised account?

BLOCKED

Presumed compromised and blocked accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Mr. Port (talk · contribs) claims that the person who originally registered this account has died, and that the account is now operated by a friend (see User talk:Mr. Port#Proposed deletion of Uniformes Iraq / 2018–2019). I don't actually believe them, but since I'm involved and can't act on this one way or the other, and since another administrator recently expressed concerns over there potentially being multiple people using this account (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. Port/Archive), I'd be remiss not to report it. Could an uninvolved admin please look into this and take appropriate action? Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm the "other administrator". I had noticed that Mr. Port's timecard showed they had edited at all hours of the day. It's certainly possible a single person could keep this kind of schedule, but my initial thought was that multiple people sharing the account was a more likely explanation. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Persistent BLP violations at Nikole Hannah-Jones

(non-admin closure) WP:BLPN would be more applicable. The page was recently protected by JJMC89. There is probably nothing else to do here. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Original research by multiple accounts (WP:SPA, looking like a meat or sock farm), alleging racism. Asking for page protection, rev/deletion, and whatever individual sanctions are appropriate. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Coronervirus

BLOCKED

Go-Away applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

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

Please revoke TPA and Email access for this sock. Also please do the required revdels. JavaHurricane 04:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Restoration of redirects on Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)

CONTENT DISPUTE

Article talk pages are the first place to discuss this. If that proves intractable, WP:DR is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Hi. A user by the name of Geraldo Perez has been reverting my edits due to claims of WP:NOTBROKEN when in fact he was restoring the redirects. What should I do? Call me when you get the chance 04:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

First thing is read the article linked to, WP:NOTBROKEN, and try for comprehension. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I already read it, and it looks like I understand it. Here goes: Colour television has been the norm in the United States since the 1960s. There, I said it. Call me when you get the chance 05:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's my understanding. Linking to a redirect is not broken necessarily. Techie3 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an editorial matter, really. Linking to a redirect can be a valid choice. Removing that redirect may be desirable for other reasons (as Geraldo Perez when he self-reverted on the Julian Morris link). If this is localized on the Sleeping Beauty article it's best settled at Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film), not here. Mackensen (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Closed without action - content dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

WP:GAMING by an IP editor using multiple IP's

This IP range Special:Contributions/2409:4073:0:0:0:0:0:0/34 is into regional POV pushing in various articles including Adimurai and Silambam and Kalaripayattu with WP:OR and misrepresenting sources. They are also using other IP's including 137.97.67.74 and 157.46.141.57

On Adimurai - Talk:Adimurai

• From 27 to 29 November, adds WP:OR with no sources and no edit summaries- [147]
• When reverted claims This version is more unsourced than the earlier. And other problems like MOS:HEADCAPS and promotional subjective attributions like "regarded as one of the oldest and most important martial art"., though they had never added any sources - [148]
• Removes cited content already in the article citing WP:OR - [149]
• Removes a source (not a good source), added by me citing WP:EXCEPTIONAL and goes on to add WP:OR in the next three edits - [150]

On Silambam - Talk:Silambam

• From 27 to 29 November, adds WP:OR and adds an unreliable source from fitindia about an event with no explanation - [151]
• I reverted it seeing their first few of the unsourced additions, claims their content is sourced -[152]
• I started a discussion at the talk page and reverted it to a revision from 22 August 2020 as lot of other auto-confirmed accounts seemed to have added WP:OR
• Calls my edit as vandalism and asks me use the talk page even though I've started a discussion - [153]
• Cites a fit-india event source and a book for the first sentence on the lead "Silambam is a weapon-based Indian martial art originated at Kurinjimala (Kurinji hills) in modern-day Kerala in the Indian subcontinent." -- While the fit-India event source says Silambam is a weapon-based Indian martial art from Tamil Nadu, but also traditionally practiced by the Tamil community of Sri Lanka and Malaysia. It is closely related to Keralan kalaripayat and Sri Lankan angampora. It derives from the Tamil word silam meaning “hill” and the Kannada word bamboo from which the English “bamboo” originates. The term silambambu referred to a particular type of bamboo from the Kurinji hills in present-day Kerala. Thus silambam was named after its primary weapon, the bamboo staff. The related term silambattam often refers specifically to stick-fighting. and the cited book with the page 23. The book doesn't even mention Kerala. This is a clear misinterpretation of source and WP:OR
• I reverted them and told them they are misinterpreting sources, they reverted it without any discussion in the talk page, saying No misrepresentation. There are three sources which clearly cites the content. Sourced content stays until a consensus is reached to remove it. Stop edit-warring.. - [154].

The WP:ONUS is on them to who was adding content with WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources. I was trying to revert to a status-quo version.

The IP range did the same thing in Kalaripayattu, edit warring with other editors Kalariwarrior and Outlander07 without using the talk page while asking other editors to use the talk page.

They also seem to be disinterested in discussing content and is interested in making baseless accusations against me at Talk:Adimurai#Revert and User_talk:Suneye1#December_2020, and other editors User_talk:Anarchyte#A_question. I strongly believe that this User is not even slightly afraid of scrutiny since they are using multiple's IP's and adding WP:OR and misrepresenting sources for POV pushing.

A block for the IP range to edit those articles (don't know if this will work because they are using different IP ranges) or a page protection with the status-quo version is necessary. I don't think this is going to stop. This is a waste of time for us editors who have these articles in our watch-list dealing with these POV pushers. SUN EYE 1 06:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)