Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Rangeblock

Last week I blocked Ythlev (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation (they reached 9RR). Today I caught them socking with a new account Uconf (talk · contribs), which I also blocked. They are now editing from IPs; I blocked 114.137.46.249 (talk · contribs), but they have popped up again with ‎114.137.134.85 (talk · contribs). Is it possible to block them with a rangeblock? Alternatively, they have quite a narrow focus of edits (Taiwanese elections), so alternatively, all of them could be semi-protected. Cheers, Number 57 12:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a /16 range so it's possible but I wouldn't recommend it. From what I see, collateral is possible but unlikely and unless newer IPs on that range pop up, I would argue multiple IP blocks being a better mechanism. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

They are now reverting random edits I've made from another IP (114.137.206.26 (talk · contribs)). Beyond short-term blocks to stop them socking at the moment, I wonder whether longer-term sanctions may be required. Number 57 14:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Or, you could start acting like an admin and actually fix the problem. 114.137.206.26 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Every recent edit is them - there is no collateral damage. Since they aren't about to stop, looking at the comment above, I have blocked the /16 range for a month to match their block. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Would WP:3X be a bit too nuclear? Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:3X requires the socking to have been confirmed by a CU; CUs do not publicly link accounts to IPs. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that requirement (since I was the one that proposed it in the original RFC). In this case, it's clear quacking and enacting a ban based on 3X would not be out of the question. Ythlev has been blocked once a month for edit warring for the last 3 months. Blackmane (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User causing repeated edit wars and misrepresenting articles

User:VenusFeuerFalle is repeatedly attempting to misrepresent very fringe opinions with regards to the Islamic view of Angels as being one that is or was widely held. This user explicitly states on their page: "I don't like edit-wars. However, if I am certain that something is wrong, I will feel the need to clarify something." I've been primarily trying to resolve this issue with regards to the page Harut and Marut and have failed to come to some sort of compromise. Looking at User talk:VenusFeuerFalle this seems to be a pattern of repeated behaviour and I was in fact notified by another user that he's attempting to make similar claims on the Iblis page, see: Talk:Iblis#Muhammad_Mahmoud_as_source. This user also repeatedly violates WP:GOODFAITH, accusing people of sockpuppeting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harut_and_Marut&diff=964108752&oldid=964104092 and asserting that others are editing based on 'agenda': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harut_and_Marut#Edit_war_about_the_story FAISSALOO_(talk) 21:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Faissaloo. Even I tried to reason with VenusFeuerFalle, and others whom he got into a dispute or contact with, here and there, but he persisted with nearly edit-warring against me here and there, accusing me and FAISSALOO of being sock-puppets, and he incorrectly said that a particular passage of a primary source (the Qur'an (18:50)) does not say that Iblis is a Jinn to another user, for which I had to refute him using a passage of the primary source that says that Iblis was a Jinn (since Venus was talking about this primary source e Qur'an), but Venus continued to pretend that the Verse didn't say that Iblis was a Jinn, and after I warned him to stop this WP:Bias, Venus then decides to report me for WP:Vandalism (when he himself is guilty of that ([1] [2], despite repeated warnings from me ([3] [4]) that he can't just go round deleting reliable sources to support his POV, not to mention that he is nearly edit-warring with me), and without a prior notification on my talk-page. Leo1pard (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC); edited 08:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have not accused you of sockpuppin. If I do this, I will report you both here: WP:SPI. The issue here is, that pretent to reason with me on the talkpage but ignore all my responses. I repeatedly told you, that the sources state. nevertheless you ignore the sources in the Harut and Marut and Iblis article. In both cases it is the common denial of fallen angels within Islamic beliefs. Since Islam scholars currently insist that there are no sinning angels and that the devil is a jinn, while simultaneously Iblis as angel (not a jinn) and Harut and Marut as sinning angels was a common motif within Islam, I suspect religious bias among both Users. These facts are all well supported within the corresponding articles. Although the users use reliable sources, their edits do not reflect the content they are citing. Instead, their edits reflect their opinnion on religious texts (here: Quran) about a certain vers.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a matter of debate, almost no one holds this view and I'm genuinely baffled as to why you seem so intent on pushing this narrative. None of your sources justify the idea that this has ever been a widely held view. This is blatant WP:FRINGE. FAISSALOO_(talk) 16:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Faissaloo, they're at WP:ANEW, over an edit war that start with their revert of your edit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated FAISSALOO_(talk) 16:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Neeraj Puru

User Neeraj Puru is WP:NOTHERE and has seemingly WP:CIR issues. All they have done on this project is to add unsourced/made-up details about the Saini caste, which is apparently their caste: [5]. They have been warned repeatedly as well as made aware about the WP:GS/Caste, but to no avail. They were blocked this month by RegentsPark, but they have started in the same vein after expiration of the block.

Previously, they tried to add Sainian in a village's name, but it was succesfully moved to its actual title: see Talk:Bir Mangaoli#Requested move 22 May 2020. Yesterday they again created the article with that unsourced title: [6]. Similarly, they previously created an unsourced article about a supposed clan of Saini caste – see here – which was rightly moved to draft space: [7]. But yesterday they again created that unsourced article: [8].

In short, the are not here to build an encyclopedia. And something needs to be done to stop their damage to this project. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There only interest seems to be to add Saini everywhere. I've blocked them as WP:NOTHERE.--regentspark (comment) 21:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette

I would like to file a complain for the way user User:J Milburn spoke to me in the Talk:Aleister_Crowley#RfC:_How_should_we_present_the_claims_that_Crowley_worked_for_British_Intelligence_in_this_article? which I think certainly breakes all the rules of Wikipedia:Etiquette as can be seen here. Things like "Are you lying, or are you just confused?" or "We follow what the reliable sources say, not what angry people on talk pages say." by far break the guidelines of etiquette. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It's blunt, it's forward, and it's terse - but it's not a personal attack or "by far" a break of civility policy.--v/r - TP 22:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment I Agree that J Milburn can do better. WP:UNCIVIL. Editors should focus on content. Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: I am doing my best to focus on content; I am simply pointing out that Dereck is behaving unreasonably. In fact, Dereck is posting here, I assume, as yet another tactic to avoid focussing on content. Have you taken a look at the conversation on the talk page? Dereck does not answer questions. He shifts the goalposts. He forum shops. He claims that he does not need consensus for his actions, and does not need reliable sources. He makes outlandish claims about what policies and guidelines say. He edit wars. He makes derogatory claims about academics (in clear violation of the biographies of living people policy). But you want to say that I can do better because I am asking him whether the untruths he repeats are lies or the result of confusion, or for referring to him as "angry". I think I have displayed quite considerable patience; YMMV. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of lying, well Josh Milburn is doing it right now. I have answer all his questions, is just that or he doesn't read them or he doesn't like the answer. He claims I edit wars, how? I make like two reversions one from a tag that was eliminated without my consent despite been the tagger and another when I considered that the re-adding of bogus claims was incorrect and in both cases I stop immediatly after another user reversed me again and took the things into the talk page, how is that "edit waring"? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Dereck, you accuse me of lying here, yet you posted minutes ago on the talk page apparently agreeing with me. In that post, you seem to accept that your claims about others calling this pseudoscience were false. These were the claims my "Are you lying, or are you just confused?" question referred to. And you seem to accept that the policy doesn't say what you claimed it said. The question of which policy said this was the key question I said you were avoiding; you said above that "I have answer all his questions, is just that or he doesn't read them or he doesn't like the answer." So which is it? I'm getting seriously mixed messages from you. This is why I have said I am disengaging; there really is very little point talking to you. (As for edit-warring: here and here. Your claim that "I stop immediatly after another user reversed me again" is false. Your tags were removed by one user, and you reverted. Your tags were removed by another, and you reverted again. And your explanations in the edit summaries are hardly clear.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn what you consider I agreed with you is that I mentioned that no, no policy says that the disputed information has to be in one special section, I myself admitted that, what I was doing was making my own suggestion on how to solve the issue. I mention several times on the talk page that this was just my suggestion not extracted from any specific guideline, that's all. I don't know if that answers your question once and for all. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You now say that "no policy says that the disputed information has to be in one special section". This is what I was asking about. I was asking what policy said this. Yet you accuse me of lying when I say you didn't answer. You very explicitly did claim that a policy says that the content needs to go in its own section: "...locating the fringe unproven statement on a special section as proposed and as the guideline and policies demand" and "The policy is to locate fringe theories on the bottom and not giving them the same space than non-fringe theories". I think it's pretty clear, then, that I was not lying about your failure to answer the question of which policy or guideline supported this, as you now accept that no policy does support this. Given that you now accept you were wrong about that policy and the BLP policy, perhaps you could have a little more care and modesty when it comes to making claims about what Wikipedia policies and guidelines demand. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn I remember you that I said, and quote: "Josh Milburn locating this disputed and unproven claims (and in some cases slanderous) in a special section is my suggestion in order to reach a compromise, as what should be done is remove them, however I was trying to suggest something less radical just to be polite. Unfortunetly nor even that reasonable suggestion was accepted and this is why we're having this discussion." You accuse me of no answering but I did answer you that that was my suggestion not something from a specific guideline. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I am not sure we are going to get anywhere here; I have said what I am going to say. I can show you why I am finding you difficult to talk to, but I cannot make you see. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Dereck Camacho, were you hoping we would not notice that you started the escalation by accusing J. Milburn of lying? What I see in that debate is a civil statement of fact, which escalates due to your obdurate refusal to accept that it is, in fact, fact. J. Milburn made clear that he has no particular dog in the fight, but that the scholarship should be enough to convince us that this is the subject of a serious debate between the relevant experts, and not "pseudoscience", "pseudohistory", or "ludacris [sic]".

This appears to be a question on which reasonable people may differ, and you give a strong impression of trying to browbeat everyone into agreeiong with you, 100%, or else.

Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. WIthdraw this complaint, calm down, and go and work out a consensus wording on Talk. Guy (help!) 13:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks or otherwise are often matters of interpretation, but the comments you highlight seem more in the category of increasingly terse requests for evidence to support the claims being made. They're not personal attacks, and they don't require admin intervention. Best way to resolve this specific issue is for (a) the discussion to refocus on the point of the RfC which is where to place the claims, and (b) for participants to accurately quote en-WP policies when referencing them in discussion. Mildly, WP:NPA also suggests raising concerns direct with the other editor before coming to a noticeboard, as this helps de-escalates disputes. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Dereck Camacho - I decided yesterday that I had made a mistake in closing your thread at DRN, but maybe I should have closed it after all. It does appear that you are trying to argue two different but related issues about Aleister Crowley in two different forums, and that is questionable. It would be better if you would decide whether you want to have a content dispute mediated at DRN or a civility dispute resolved here, rather than arguing in both places. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Dereck Camacho - I would suggest that you should read Wikipedia policies carefully rather than quickly, because at DRN it appears that you have seriously misread the BLP policy. Don't get into a hole by arguing a non-existent policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon although I don't see the relationship among the two issues because here I'm reporting what I considered was rudeness and breach of the rules of conduct (but apparently is not) and has nothing to do with content dispute and the DRN is about content dispute, this thread is as far as I understand closed already isn't it? I'm just responding because I was mentioned. If the case is already close, can I still answer when I'm accused of something and give my version or should I remain in silence? I'm asking honestly, I don't know if once close I shouldn't edit in it anymore. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Harassment, edit warring, controlling behaviour with an admin friend

Hello. I'm a humble IP editor who shows up on and off over the years. Usually I correct issues of bias that stand out to me, such as the summary of a research paper I saw on the Goldendoodle page. Admittedly, my edit is poor from an English/grammar point of view but at the least it summarizes both the positives and negatives rather than cherry picked negative details.

I then went over to the page on Dog crossbreeds and was immediately mortified. I made one minor change to a sentence that was irrecoverable and proposed a rewrite in the talk page while mulling over a proposal by Cavalryman. Ultimately I disagreed with his proposal, but woke up to find the discussion closed and already implemented, which was odd since his proposal was only a week old and on a fairly minor page. Since my vote made the second vote and the proposal had only been up for a week on a fairly minor article, I reverted it and reminded Cavalryman that I had just voted and that we should keep discussing first. I made the good faith assumption that he simply missed my vote and forgot to take it into consideration or didn't notice that I had only started editing those pages.

I then made a different proposal that we push the Poodle crossbreeds to the List of dog crossbreeds as a clean redirect since a large portion of the listed crossbreeds are "poodle crossbreeds" in any case. Cavalryman followed me to this page and instantly closed my discussion and proposal, despite that it was a different proposal from the other one, and refuses to allow any discussion at all in these pages as if he owns them. If I disagree, he just says he will call up his admin friend. I don't see how this could possibly be conducive to good faith editing and discussion in the long term. Following me to other pages and "closing" my discussion with edits is also incredibly inappropriate, as is basically using an admin for token support in these settings.

Good faith requires that we take each other into consideration. These aren't huge pages with massive views, there's no reason for an admin to come in and prevent discussion and force changes while I, someone new, is just getting started in contributing. This isn't the first time this has happened, I can go through Cavalryman's history and point out other example of this sort of chronic behaviour and bullying towards new editors and stifling of discussion. Pre-empting an "edit war" argument to stop/prevent discussion on the talk pages is particularly inappropriate. So he can delete or push aside my comments even in the talk pages, how can I share my views or thoughts?

Hoping I can get some consideration here. No idea what to do when I come in as a fresh editor, get ignored, and the big response I get is: "You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You must notify any user you bring up in your grievance. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have notified both Cavalryman and William Harris in their respective talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#User:LeoRussoLeo. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: At the base of this, Cavalryman shouldn’t be closing their own proposals (1, 2) per closure procedure. The other close also seems to be a different proposal (same source, different target) and so could be left open.
  Just don’t close discussions as an involved editor and talk the content dispute out; there probably isn’t much else to this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, I would prefer not to have to close my own proposals but when it comes to dog articles, if you don't close them they sit idly open for years, my interpretation of WP:MERGECLOSE is I as the nominator are permitted to close a discussion. A notice of this proposal was posted on the article creator's TP as well as WT:DOGS, then I closed this discussion after a week had passed. It is hard to discern what the IP is seeking, and they seem more interested in slugging it out than engaging in discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

Further, the IP's recollection of events is distorted, this proposal was closed ([9]) a full 17 hours prior to their !vote ([10]). Cavalryman (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC).

I distorted nothing. I made specific note that you had closed the vote shortly after I started editing the talk page (less than one day) but before I entered my vote. I also made specific note that even after I reopened the vote, instead of taking my vote into consideration you moved it to an unbolded less visible location and accused me of edit warring when I would not allow that to continue, while implementing your own changes. The only measure that slowed you down was opening this incident report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, you’re right that the MERGECLOSE wording does suggest that anyone can close merge proposals. In this case, opposition came soon after the proposal was self-closed, so one should probably just let it reopen at that point. The opposition demonstrated that the proposal was controversial (and therefore really only close-able by an uninvolved editor) and came soon enough after the close that it was reasonable to not enforce the discussion’s close (if it came a month later, that would be a different story). — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Puzzlement

"You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here." Huh?

Fact 1: On 16JUN20 I voted to support the merging of poodle crossbreeds into dog crossbreeds

Fact 2: On 25JUN20 I received a "Notification of involvement in an incident" leading to here

Someone needs to explain the logical connection between Fact 1 and Fact 2, in addition to the quote taken from above in this section.

William Harristalk 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@William Harris: I think that the IP inferred (incorrectly) an attempt to bring an admin onto his side from: Pinging William Harris as the other contributor to the discussion. in this edit. I don't see any other explanation for that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I was simultaneously accused of edit warring while Cavalryman told me his was bringing in the admin, in response to me disagreeing with a redirect proposal. Completely inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I still do not know what this has to do with me. I am not an admin, never have been, and never will be. You will need to explain to me why you called me to this page, and why you made the very strange comment that you did. William Harristalk 06:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Cavalryman brought you up while attempting to remove my vote from a talk page. As you are involved in this incident, I was required to notify you. If you aren't an admin, I'm unsure of who Cavalryman was referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I made contributions to the talk pages in all of the mentioned articles and Cavalryman did not respond to any of them. Zero discussion or reply to anything I have stated in the talk threads, only deletions or accusations of "edit warring" with him because I reinstated my comments in the talk pages! Even after undoing his deletions and marking my changes with a request to him to discuss things in the talk pages, he does not. In this thread/incident report here, note he simply accuses me of engaging in a "slug fest" and says I'm not interesting in discussing things! I'm the one actually making detailed talk page edits and trying to discuss things. The edits speak for themselves. His edits involve blanking out other peoples replies in talk pages or pushing them aside and adding flags around them to tell them that their votes don't count. I see no contributions to the talk pages or discussions that do not involve baseless accusations rather than specific content in the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Your issues with another editor are not my concern. I await your explanation for the very strange comment that you have made, and which you appear to be avoiding, i.e. "You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here." William Harristalk 08:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, you were notified as it was required. To answer your other question, it was Cavalaryman's explicit comments in the talk section of the dog crossbreed wiki accusing me of edit warring while saying he'd welcome input from an admin and was pinging you, who given the context I assumed was an admin. The evidence of these claims is literally pasted on the talk pages and in Cavalryman's edit history while he attempted to blank out and remove my votes on a merger proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I offer my view on this matter, which I draw from the written record:

• On 16JUN20 at Talk:Dog crossbreed#Merger proposal:Poodle crossbreed, editor Cavalryman proposed a merge of the article Poodle crossbreeds into the article Dog crossbreeds
• On the same day I supported that merge after being attracted by a note placed on WP:DOGS here, which ends my involvement in this matter - I have no watch on this page nor further interest as to whether the article is merged or not
• On 24JUN20 you oppose the merge, and then you and Cavalryman enter into whatever issues you have with each other
• At 1:20 25JUN20, Cavalryman states: "Further, per your edit summary at Poodle crossbreed I would welcome the input of an Admin, your edit warring is not appropriate, the above discussion should be re-closed as that action was done per policy, your subsequent objections are being discussed here now. Pinging William Harris as the other contributor to the discussion." (My bolding, it appears that I am the only other contributor to the proposal)
• From this statement, it is my opinion that you then inferred (a) that William Harris is an administrator, and (b) that William Harris can be called upon on Cavalryman's behalf
• At 2:24 you opened a section at WP:ANI titled "Harassment, edit warring, controlling behaviour with an admin friend", where you write the very strange statement: "You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here." This provides evidence that you believe that I am the "admin friend", the one that you believe Cavalryman might attempt to establish "controlling behaviour" through
• At 2:36 you are advised that "You must notify any user you bring up in your grievance"
• At 2:45 you reply "I have notified both Cavalryman and William Harris in their respective talk pages", which provides evidence that you believe that you have a grievance with me
• At 4:14 I ask why I have been called to ANI and the meaning of your strange comment
• At 6:04 I state that I am not an administrator, and am not clear why I was brought to ANI
• At 6:14 based on my statement immediately above, you have a rethink and respond "Cavalryman brought you up while attempting to remove my vote from a talk page. As you are involved in this incident, I was required to notify you." Only I am not involved in this incident, and have no interest in it, even if I was pinged by Cavalryman. I believe that the reason that you brought me here was because you thought that I was involved in the "controlling behaviour with an admin friend"
• Additionally you state: "If you aren't an admin, I'm unsure of who Cavalryman was referring to." Which provides further evidence that you thought that I was an administrator, else you would have been unsure of who Cavalryman was referring to and would not have been in a position to have made the following statement: "You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here."
• You then attempt to redirect the conversation through a tirade against Cavalryman for the next paragraph, which is irrelevant to the matters that I have raised. Your issues with another editor are your issues and not mine.

On this evidence, I believe that I am owed an apology by the IP for his incorrect inference that I am an administrator who can be called upon by Cavalryman, and excused from further attendance at ANI concerning the matter of "Harassment, edit warring, controlling behaviour with an admin friend". William Harristalk 11:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem confused. I was literally required to notify you as a matter of policy because your name was mentioned in the original report. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy. All mentioned parties must be notified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Randam

Randam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This user has been posting defamatory information about critical journalists from Turkey. Despite removal of his earlier edits, he AGAIN edited the page about Abdullah Bozkurt, a critical Turkish journalist and placed defamatory statements attributed to sources from Turkish government which jailed the largest number of journalists in the entire world according to reputable organizations such as CPJ, RSF and others. He edited one about Yavuz Baydar, another Turkish journalist, which triggered discussion and removal of the page. His track record shows he is overtly pro-Turkish government and has been editing entries favorably about Turkish President Recep tayyip Erdogan, his son'in.law Berat Albayrak and other issues that are important for the Turkish government. He was blocked for editing Turkey's neighbor Greece on Covid-19 response with unverified data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher Turkey (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Researcher Turkey: In the future, please follow the instructions and notify users when starting a thread about them. Please sign your posts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand how it is defamatory. These are the 'defamatory' edits (1 and 2) in question. I'm not writing "person X is Y". I write "person X is being accused of Y in/by Z", including words like "allegedly", followed by sources. The allegations exists. That doesn't mean the allegations are true or false. It's not our job to decide that.

The text on the article of Yavuz Baydar was removed because of copyvio tag, reviewed by an admin.

The other stuff I will not even reply to as it is just ad hominem attacks. Randam (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Note, Researcher Turkey claims to be the subject of these edits per [diff]. As a result them editing and removing information about themselves is at least a COI. This doesn't mean their points don't have merit, though the sources seems reliably source to me but I don't know enough about it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment (edit conflict) Reviewing admins should be aware of this unsigned comment by Researcher Turkey on User talk:Randam, which is in my view WP:UNCIVIL and perhaps warrants a WP:BOOMERANG. After a quick review of both user's edit histories, it seems obvious to me that Researcher Turkey is the one pushing a POV here, that is, the POV that the Turkish government is evil. Randam's edits do indeed contain the word allegedly as required. And, indeed, their edits are helpful. How else are we supposed to know why someone was exiled? Even if the charges are false, they still matter to the articles in question. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• One problem we do have here is sourcing contentious claims to Turkish media like the Daily Sabah and TRT World, which are effectively just Turkish government propoganda mouthpieces (the piece used to source the diff mentioned above by Randam was titled "How does FETÖ's mouthpiece in Sweden generate fake news?"). If an editor is removing statements in a BLP that are only sourced to such, without it being made very clear where that claim comes from, they should be removed. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I disagree in this case, but now we're getting into a content dispute which isn't the point of AN/I. These sources are reliable for the Turkish government's official reasons for its persecution of Bozkurt. They would not be generally reliable for facts in other contexts. Knowing the official reason why someone is exiled matters... Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

but it does mean the sources could be seen as contentious, so if someone objects, they shouldn't be edit warred back in, which is what Randam was doing.(The Daily Sabah ref appears to be an OP ed). Curdle (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought reverting a COI editor was an obvious 3RR exemption, but it's not listed. I opened a discussion at WT:WAR. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources are from the Turkish state-owned AA, TRT and as such they are not reliable. Some sources do not even mention the name of a person whose biography page is about. Researcher Turkey (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Researcher Turkey: Per WP:RSP, [c]onsensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government. Andalou Agency also fits the bill in my opinion. Further discussion of the wording of the article Abdullah Bozkurt should take place at the article's talk page, Talk:Abdullah Bozkurt. We aren't using these sources to accuse you of anything. I further watered down the statement Wikipedia is making because of how contentious the sources are.[11] Nevertheless, the official reasons for your exile, no matter how unfair they are, should be in your article. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That is fair and agree that AA and TRT represent the official line, but one needs to give a context, balanced and counterview in the page, especially in a biography page, when you use such sources. Turkey frequently invokes anti-terror charges against journalists. Just yesterday the US State department issued a country terrorism report accusing Turkey of using anti-terror probes to crack down on freedom of press. This page was initially created by Randam with more baseless claims such an official page for Bozkurt, which was a fake. It was removed after a dispute by another editor. Researcher Turkey (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Researcher Turkey: No problem. I added another line with three sources, plus a § "See also" section. In future, probably Talk:Abdullah Bozkurt is the place to go, by the way, since this discussion will be closed eventually, but a talk page is forever. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Rwbest

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

Rwbest is a sporadically-active editor with a narrow editing focus, notably advancing the views of Mark Z. Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has edit-warred there numerous times, see previous warning for example, and WP:OWNs the article Worldwide energy supply (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([12]), which is related. Jacobson is best known to a lay audience for suing people who wrote a paper critical of his ideas, which was gleefully seized on by climate change deniers. That suit was dismissed and Jacobson has just been ordered to pay dmaages and costs related to it. Quick as a flash up pops Rwbest to make sure it's sympathetically on the article on Jacobson, as noted by The Banner on WP:RFPP just now. As a WP:SPA with a history of edit-warring and civil POV-pushing, I think Rwbest should be banned from that article. Guy (help!) 13:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• • I only try to make a more neutral and accurate description of the lawsuit. Rwbest (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    Rwbest, so you said last time, and were warned thast no, this is not the effect of your edits. Guy (help!) 15:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It is really interesting to see that the blocked user:Mark Z. Jacobson is now asking for a block for me. In fact with the same arguments that Rwbest is using: "defamatory comments" and "Motions for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs". Note that the "frivolous lawsuit" is a quote from the given source. It looks like Rwbest needed auxiliary troops to shift the blame to me. The Banner talk 17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

And the source given is not about the actual case, but separate motions about who has to pay the costs and fees of the original case. ([13]), invoking Strategic lawsuit against public participation. The Banner talk 18:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: Jacobson is now also asking for a block of JzG. The Banner talk 18:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted the personal attacks and the rant there and revoked their talk page access. That's a textbook example of what NOT to do when you are blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, thank you - I am normally keen for BLP subjects to be able to edit their talk pages, but Jacobson does a striking impression of Captain Grievance. Guy (help!) 22:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The present kerfuffle seems to be about a single sentence that's currently at the end of the lead and another sentence that says the same thing in the body. These sentences have been the focus of a total of 14 edits, 6 of which were made by Rwbest. The scale of this dispute is, by Wikipedia standards, tiny and any disruptive editing hasn't yet risen to the level of a topic ban for anyone, in my opinion. I can't see why this can't be dealt with by normal editing processes. I do think we have some serious BLP sourcing problems here - the sentences in question have cite two sources, one of which is a Forbes Contributor source and therefore completely unsuitable for a BLP, and the other of which appears to be a database of primary sources. I'll follow up with edits to the article and talk page, and I'm optimistic we can come to consensus on the content. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If this was the first time, you would have a point. But it is not. Just see Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson. The Banner talk 10:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rwbest/Archive from 2018, where the same type of editing was at stake. And as I stated there: The most positive options seems to be that Rwbest is working for or working on behalf of Mark Z. Jacobson, having an undeclared COI (...). The Banner talk 18:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Clayoquot, no, it's about Rwbest's stunningly accurate impression of being Jacobson's PR. Guy (help!) 11:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore I actually found user:Mark Z. Jacobson's talk page comments useful in flagging BLP issues with the content in his biography. I'd suggest his talk page access be restored with a warning to comment on content not contributors. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable doing that myself, however if another admin wishes to do so, they certainly can. As a blocked user however, he should be trying to request an unblock, not continue a dispute with other editors. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson's talk page comments were clearly inappropriate. He's using his talk page to harass and abuse other editors, and if you look through the page history, it's mostly just a place for him to post angry rants and his very skewed views on what should and should not be in his article. Re-enabling his talk page wouldn't do anyone any good, least of all him. No opinion on Rwbest, since I'm unfamiliar with the larger history. All I can say is that neither he nor The Banner come out of their recent exchange looking good. They edit-warred over recently added material on the article for several days. Neither of them posted on the talk page until I brought up the issue [14]. Rwbest has not commented, and The Banner posted only to say that he's not going to talk about article content until this report is resolved [15]. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Correction: I suggested to wait with the content discussion until this case was closed. I have enough experience with Rwbest to know that these two discussion will be mixed up. See also this as example of his whitewashing. The Banner talk 16:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna again

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

---

I do not feel incline1d to kowtow again to continued personal attacks like which which have been going on for years now. Either reprimand me for subverting consensus or reprimand the limitless user. Tired of it & tired of no action on it. Absolutely fed up this time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

@Surtsicna: Underhanded? So much for WP:AGF? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing took part in a move discussion and explicitly abstained from it. Two days after a decision was reached and the moves performed, he went to the talk page of the user who performed the moves to request a reversion and a new move discussion. This subverted the outcome of a 7-day-long discussion. I did find that underhanded, as posting on a user talk page after a discussion was neither transparent nor inclusive of the community. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Not factual in any way. I asked the move closer to take another look to see if the one article had been included in error on a list if articles nominated for mass moves that this user wanted done. It had been included in error. If I "find" something to create an opinion about a user, I am still not at liberty to attack him or her in this manner. These personal attacks - underhanded - subversive- are not in any way warranted (are they ever?!), particularly, I might assert, in answer to my request to respect guideline & stick to topic. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I included the article into the list deliberately, not in any error. You took part in the discussion and had ample time to voice any concerns about any of the proposed moves. Instead, you abstained and then went behind everyone's back. Instead of apologizing, you are complaining about me criticizing your actions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

So, IMO, no one here looks great in this (including myself). For some background: I was the closer of the first RM here. I found that there was a consensus to move a group of 8 pages, one of which was Charles XV of Sweden. User:SergeWoodzing posted an "abstain" comment on that RM. After my closure, SergeWoodzing requested on my talk that I reverse my move of Charles XV of Sweden to Charles XV because Norway numbers him differently. Although SergeWoodzing could (and probably should) have brought that up in the first discussion, I thought it could have some merit, and I obliged (and started a second RM). I don't really have much to say about the second requested move, where I was not involved after my procedural nomination. Suffice it to say that, considering that discussion, I think that I should not have reversed that move. Also, if you're going to mention me on ANI (even if unnamed), please notify me. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This is about whether or not a personal attack is OK, not about anything done any 3rd party in connection with any move. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

People are allowed to criticize your actions, both on this collaborative project and outside of it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If the question needing an answer for this report is about a PA, then The topic is your underhanded subversion of the community's decision.... does appear to me to be a comment on an action and not an editor; therefore, not a PA. Very toxic, yes, but technically I'm not comfortable with calling that a PA, as defined. If you want to address the specific move discussion, or a pattern of toxicity, then you need to re-frame your report, with diffs. Others may disagree, so just consider this a one-off opinion. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The item here is the words "underhanded subversion". Some editors can get away with personal attacks like that, time and time again. Others cannot. I've been active as logged in since 2008 and try very hard never to insult people here. I will never understand how some of us are untouchable when being "very toxic" even in choosing to use words like that. How many years does it take to become a VIP like that? Not that I'm interested for me, but there may be many others reading this who'd like to know when they can attack people with no recourse of any kind. Coming here, and trying to get someone to react, just adds injury to insult. I'm embarrassed that I was foolish enough to try it again. Moral (?) of the story: if someone else does something you do not like, because it interferes with your own plans and desires, it's perfectly OK to accuse h of underhanded subversion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that is not okay to accuse an editor of underhanded subversion, so that should be avoided in future, Surtsicna. Please take note. Otherwise, I'm closing this report with that warning highlighted. El_C 14:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Disputes over Islamic subject matter

Based on an AIV request, I blocked an editor in regards to Islamic schools and branches. Not exactly a subject matter I know much about, but the edit history did seem like disruptive editing. Perhaps I used the wrong reason, perhaps not. The block is being appealed, and I have no problem with anyone over-riding me and unblocking.

However, that's not my question. This is not the first time I've seen heated edit summaries over articles related to Islam, but I don't see any Arbcom restrictions on the subject matter. Which kind of surprises me. So, if this was any of the rest of you admins, how would you have handled this? Is there a guideline somewhere regarding Islamic subject matter? — Maile (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Maile66, yeah, there are no DS or GS on Islam (though there are obviously times where it would fall into GS/ISIL, DS/India-Pakistan, or DS/Palestine-Israel, and I know the latter both have acronyms but I never remember which is which). To be honest, I think I would have handed a temporary block for edit-warring/POV-pushing here rather than an indef, especially since this wasn't actually vandalism per se and the AIV report looks like it was motivated by a content dispute. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

ApChrKey

Small issue with ApChrKey making obviously nonsensical edits then undoing them -- for the lols? Examples being [16][17][18] and a good chunk of his undos being against himself Naleksuh (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I gave ApChrKey (talk · contribs) a solid warning. Please notify me if there are any further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Fernando.andutta

• Fernando.andutta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Wikiletters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• wikiletters.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Wikiletters has been created and A7 deleted three times,[19][20][21] and Fernando.andutta has been spamming[22][23][24][25][26][27] links to it after receiving a COI warning.[28] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Fernando has the ANI flu. Pro tip: if ever you break the rules and they have you dead to rights, just stop editing Wikipedia until the ANI report gets autoarchived. You can then resume spamming or whatever. Works pretty much every time.

The question is whether this is one of the ones who comes back and spams again months later, or whether this is one of the ones who goes away and never comes back. Creating Wikiletters multiple times argues for the former. Might I suggest an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block? I think we can hold off on salting wikiletters and/or blacklisting *.wikiletters.org until we see further spamming. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I've partially blocked him from article space so he can discuss the issue here. Agree this is a case of NOTHERE but at least this will give him the opportunity to defend himself and/or discuss his edits on talk pages. Looking at his history and deleted contributions he's shown no interest in working collaboratively and seems to have some serious COI issues. At least this should bring him to the table. Glen 12:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:48Pills

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

---

• 48Pills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an uninvolved admin please handle the above? There's some blatant civility (as well as attendant reinstating challenged content) problems here and this ought to be speedily nipped in the bud (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, and example 5). I think this can be rather summarily dealt with. Neutrality^talk 23:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours I gave us a 3 day reprieve from their attacks and disruption. If they continue after 3 days, we can look at a more permanent solution.--v/r - TP 00:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Oliszydlowski forcing tourism advertisments into article leads while ignoring WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, deleted other user's talk page edit in relevant discussion

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

---

There is a discussion over at History of Poland (Talk:History_of_Poland#Human_activity_in_Poland_in_antiquity). Basically, the user is trying to put in this article's lead something as from a tourism pamphlet, even though I and other editors thoroughly explained to him why that can't pass (puffery, POV, too vague, not specific enough, not refutable/verifiable, ...). Oliszydlowski also does the same "tourism" thing in a wildly inappropriate style for some other articles: diff, diff.

Here he removed a talk page comment by a user that disagreed with him, and insulted the user to boot. He keeps talking to other users in a threatening tone in edit summaries and on the talk page on History of Poland, and casts aspersions without basis. Notrium (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: also WP:AGF. Notrium (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: has removed content per personal beliefs without achieving a discussion or consensus. He refused the Template:Rfc per administrator advice and continued editing the page without stating viable arguments to change it. Users Piotrus and GizzyCatBella noticed his actions and did not support his edits. He now falsely accuses me of insults and threats which there is absolutely no record of and is simply not true, but he has been simply warned by me that if he continues to edit the article without a vote he will be reported. We also suspected Wikipedia:Sock puppetry between Notrium and François Robere. It is those users or user who began to delete the information in the lead. He violated the guidelines in Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Template:Rfc. He claims to have used the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, however, it has not been used properly as it was him who began reverting and "improving" per his own specifications. On my part, there is absolutely no proof of any tourist advertisement which is horrendous as I was attempting to keep the content which has been embedded on the page and was suddenly removed without discussion. No WP:BURDEN has been violated by me as I was only reverting what I considered pure vandalism, and the lead content comprising of 2 sentences I considered obvious and unnecessary to cite, although one citation was included but was ironically deleted by User Notrium. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You are lying a bit too much. For example, when did I ever refuse an RfC, "[continue] editing the page without stating viable arguments to change it" or claim to use BRD? Notrium (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the insults and threats, I will provide more diffs if I must, but since everything I was talking about happened so recently and is on one article, I hope it is not necessary. Notrium (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There were absolutely no insults whatsoever, only warnings in regards to your conduct per Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

How can you possibly say that I am edit warring after your latest reverts on History of Poland? Notrium (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I recently looked at this article (which has been on my watchlist for 10+ years) and my edits where quickly reverted by both; this might need a protection for few days, and both parties should be warned to step back. And RfC has been proposed on talk and may be a good idea, although I am not sure if either party could write something that is neutral. Frankly, having reviewed the discussion and article history, all of this seems to be about some really minor and generally uncontroversial wording. Storm in a teacup, really. Short term protection and a mild warning to behave is likely the best solution. Ping User:El C who recently left a commend along those lines to the parties on the talk (and added 500/30 protection due to a DUCKsock appearance). PS. Edit conflict: separately, NPA is an issue, when an editor accuses another one of lying, this is a separate conduct issue that may warrant a separate review from the short term protection, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Your edit has been mistakenly reverted by me, but has been restored. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I do appreciate you addressing this quickly; at least we have consensus on this minor hyperlink now, it appears. One down. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium unbelievable battleground behaviour you hold dear co-editor apart from the edit warring [29], [30], [31] something that could be easily solved by following this advice [32] @Oliszydlowski this account Iron Thain who joined the dispute by reverting [33] is possible banned user Icewhiz [34] (Iron Thain please clarify if you are not) so don't bother with the investigation, please.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to illustrate Notrium behaviour I would like to point out that within 25 minutes of me leaving the comment above [35] Notrium proceeds to the article of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn he never edited before to support a position [36] that is opposite to my recent edit [37]. GizzyCatBella🍁 06:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If I can, I would nevertheless suggest advising parties to cool off, disengage and proceed to RfC following this advice [38].GizzyCatBella🍁 06:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note: A short discussion on this topic also occurred at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#WP:PEACOCK at the History of Poland lead. CMD (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, François Robere is an editor in good standing. Accusing them of socking outside of SPI and without evidence is not acceptable. Also, warning Notrium of vandalism (without evidence, either) is a personal attack — please see what vandalism is not. Anyway, if the matter is being discussed at NPOVN already, why split the discussion with a new ANI report? Again, SPI remains at editors' disposal at all times. Oh, and as always, I am staying away from the Solzhenitsyn page (which I do not have watchlisted) like I would the plague. Not that I was asked about it. El_C 07:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"if the matter is being discussed at NPOVN already, why split the discussion with a new ANI report" - AFAIK the noticeboard is about just content, while this ANI report is about user conduct (with Oliszydlowski's latest reverts with no regard towards policy or the ongoing discussion being the straw that broke the camel's back). AFAIK NPOVN is no replacement for ANI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notrium (talk • contribs)

Sure, fair enough. Although I see you make conduct complaints there, too, is my point. But regardless, I'm not sure we have much that's immediately actionable in this report, aside from a warning to Oliszydlowski to use Wikipedia resources correctly and avoid personal attacks and aspersions. But maybe also not to engage in WP:HOUNDING, Notrium. Please take note. El_C 08:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I added the diffs in question. I notice now that in the initial report I failed to mention that the main reason I think Oliszydlowski needs to be sanctioned right now is the repeated reversion of others' edits while ignoring discussion and policy, because that causes real disruption for all involved editors: some uninvolved editor already came and edited over Oliszydlowski's edit-warred version and now it will be extra effort for somebody to revert back to the version it should be until Oliszydlowski or GizzyCatBella make a real attempt at dispute resolution. Notrium (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

More diffs

Original April edits that introduced the "tourism ad" wording, for context: [39]

Edit warring on History of Poland while ignoring discussion and policy: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] (especially these last few)

Threatening edit summaries and edit summaries that cast aspersions willy-nilly: [49] [50] [51]

Same for talk page edits: [52] [53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notrium (talk • contribs)

What is it that you want to happen, Notrium? El_C 09:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess the above (section) answers that. I'm not prepared to sanction Oliszydlowski at this time, Notrium. El_C 09:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

How about just reversing his latest edits? Any of the already involved editors would risk edit warring in doing so, but they should obviously be reversed (I guess you agree?)? Notrium (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I take no position on the content front. I recommend you follow my advise, work together on launching an RfC and take it from there. I'm closing this report now. El_C 09:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Romary

User Travelerone1 and also 75.110.96.60 seem to be the same person / account or related persons in the same area. Neither has a talk page to notify them on.

Peter Romary is currently the Defendant in a lawsuit and the above user(s) have refused to go to Talk Page and discuss - they appear to be a person who is known to law enforcement and is being looked into for obstruction of justice for things being done here and on other social media sites (Facebook). I won't name and I don't wish to make any threats as I am simply a person who has tried to request balance to this page.

A UK lawyer came on and clarified the position of Judge John Romary. Also it seems that a lot of personal attacks, innuendo, inflammatory language and allegations with no supporting documentation is being posted. I do not intend to back and forth with people who seem bent on attacking someone and undoing changes supported by evidence and articles. But would ask to see if the above are engaged in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry and whether they can be blocked and someone can go on and make this an encyclopedic article rather than some type of attack forum.

While looking I also found, that someone posted on Facebook, this page which seems to be nothing more than a free range violation of Wikipedia policies from start to finish and a full on personal attack using a Wikipedia userpage as a forum with nothing but the unsupported writings of someone who claims they were once hired (and then employment discontinued) by Romary. It also seems that the page owner transferred the top part of the page onto his Talk page when the author tried to take it down, telling said author "do not delete things" (even those that violate Wikipedia policies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreddhk

The whole thing seems a mess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.69.209 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Christ, all that stuff by User:Travelerone1 was pure BLPVIO (which they've bring doing since November 2019): I've removed the unsourced ad blog- etc sourced crap. For a hit job, Al Neri couldn't have done better. Admin, might wanna scrub some of it. ——Serial ^# 16:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. [T]ied to several devious acts — really? El_C 16:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's soiled your nice clean mop El_C  :) cheers. Yeah, the devious dastardly devilishness of the guy, old chap! What an article. ——Serial ^# 16:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, gotta rinse it out well. Indeed, it's quite unbelievable. El_C 16:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• El C you might wanna just block them, they don't appear to be here for anything good. Praxidicae (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Let's see if the warnings and DS alert will make a meaningful difference. But I agree that this is block-worthy territory, for sure. El_C 17:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• A barnstar to whomever can explain the meaning of the claim that Peter did the Fan Dance at the request of the SAS. EEng 03:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruption by MWise12 and Netoholic at Boogaloo movement

• Boogaloo movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MWise12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

MWise12 background

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

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

• MWise12 introduces the change: [54]
• GW revert: reverted, summary This has nothing to do with the boogaloo movement. Details about this person/the incident could go at 2020 boogaloo killings, maybe, though I fail to see why the specific memes he posted on Facebook are encyclopedia material
• MW revert: [55], summary It gives us insight into motive - this was not a "far right" attack.
• GW revert: [56], summary feel free to draw your own personal conclusions from his memes, but that's absolutely not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:OR

MWise12 then went over to the 2020 boogaloo killings page to try to insert the change there: [57]. I was growing uncomfortable with the edit warring and did not wish to step over the line, so I started a talk page discussion at Talk:2020 boogaloo killings#Meme, though another editor also found the addition inappropriate and reverted it as I was starting the discussion. In the conversation MWise12 did not appear to see any problem with his WP:OR analysis of the Facebook post.

Netoholic background

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

• Netoholic removal, 21:26, 17 June 2020, summary no reliable source presented that these specific pictured individuals to be part of this movement. see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Legal issues
• GW revert, 21:29, 17 June 2020, summary source image specifically identifies the subjects as members of the movement (https://www.flickr.com/photos/16086041@N00/49416109936/); sources cited in caption also verify that members of boogaloo groups were at this event
• Netoholic revert, 21:30, 17 June 2020, summary As I said, no RELIABLE source is presented. what the photographer thinks is not reliable.
• I created a talk page section, 21:32, 17 June 2020. Full section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image
• Britishfinance revert, 21:34, 17 June 2020, sourcing has been demonstrated by the source (and the source was at the protect in person).
• Netoholic revert, 21:38, 17 June 2020, Unacceptable. A random photographer on Flickr is not a reliable source for such an assertion. See WP:Wikipedia:Image us policy#Legal issues and ]]Wikipedia:Image use policy#Moral issues]] for even tamer examples of inappropriately describing people in photographs using potentially defamatory language.
• Britishfinance revert, 21:43, 17 June 2020, summary Example text

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

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

Netoholic hasn't edited the article much besides this image issue and the June 26 issue I'm about to describe, though they have participated here and there in talk page discussions. In a conversation about how the article had received an enormous number of pageviews, Netoholic felt the need to insert the comment: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex. [58] I was surprised to see such a claim made by an experienced editor, who has apparently decided that the sourcing in the page is (at least in part) "fake news". It was also surprising to see this term apparently used in the same way as by Trump, to refer to news with which one disagrees. I suggested that if Netoholic was serious about such a change to the sourcing Wikipedia accepts, they should take it to either RSN or VPP, but it appears the comment was meant more as a snipe at the editors and less as a constructive suggestion of change. Full discussion is partway down the section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2#Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS.

June 26 disruption

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

• In regards to the claim of Original Research, I was not doing independent research but rather citing two reliable sources. Mercury News and ABC both specifically mentioned Carillo's Facebook posts in connection to the killings. Mercury News stated "The complaint points to Carrillo’s Facebook posts, in which he voiced support for violence against law enforcement and made references to the Boogaloo movement, as evidence of his motivation." The ABC News report stated "On his Facebook page on May 31, Carillo reposted a meme that said, "I'll never let racist white people make me forget about the dope white people I know exist. I love y'all." The post includes fist emojis of different skin tones, and both of the "whites" in the meme were crossed out. Carillo wrote, "The only race that matters, the human race."

In regards to the editing vs discussing, I apologize for being too quick to edit before discussing and will make sure to fix that in the future. However, I will point out that I didn't even come close to breaking the 3RR. I also disagree that we ever reached a valid consensus to keep "far right" in the lead. Just because I was too busy to continue debating for a few days does not mean I accepted your position. MWise12 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Your description of your behavior regarding Carrillo's Facebook post appears to continue to misunderstand WP:OR, a policy which begins by stating (emphasis mine) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Including this content to try to make claims about Carrillo's political affiliations, when the sources made no such statements, is OR.

  As I stated on the talk page, it's fine if you're too busy to continue a conversation. But the conversation was not just between you and I, there were other editors involved. Furthermore, if you believed consensus had not been achieved, you could have re-opened the discussion at any point rather than edit-warring your preferred version of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I reject the characterization of any of these edits as "disruption" - GorillaWarfare is simply using language priming to poison the well. GorillaWarfare has above admitted to violations of 3RR and cannot possibly characterize only one side of this as "edit warring" while trying to escape the same label. In fact, when content is disputed, the WP:ONUS is clearly on those seeking inclusion, and so any reverts seeking removal of disputed content are implicitly -less- "disruptive" than the reverts pushing the material back into the article. WP:BOOMERANG should be deployed and GorillaWarfare given a ban from the Boogaloo topic area for her disruption, edit warring, and misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  I honestly could not have asked for a better example of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that Netoholic has been exhibiting, which makes collaborating them extremely difficult. In this short paragraph they manage to:

  • completely sidestep any discussion of their own behavior
  • call for an unwarranted boomerang ban against me from the page
  • characterize my use of the extremely commonly-used term in dispute resolution, "disruption", as "using language priming to poison the well"
  • inaccurately state that I've admitted to multiple violations of 3RR — I did acknowledge a singular breach of 3RR that was not only accidental but only a violation in the strictest interpretation of the policy: nearly 24 hours had elapsed and it was a completely different day, and the reverts were on completely different edits to the page
  • incomprehensibly accuse me of "trying to escape" the label of edit warring—I listed my own edits in the groups of edits I described as an "edit war"
  • once again misuse WP:ONUS; I've already pointed out to them that that consensus was achieved, and now they've shown up ten days later to unilaterally state that there was no consensus. They could have reopened the conversation or started a formal consensus-gathering discussion, but instead they chose to edit war while also handwaving at "lots of sources" and claiming that somehow ten days elapsing rendered the previous consensus stale ([59])
  • falsely claim that repeatedly removing the content is somehow less disruptive, in contravention of WP:STATUSQUO ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo")
  • baselessly accuse me of "misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC" — I was already quite clear on the talk page that I intended to fully review the sources and then, assuming the weight of the sourcing still supports the "far-right" label, start an RfC. I started this ANI discussion because MWise12 and Netoholic were continuing the edit war (which I will note I stepped out of yesterday) while I was trying to urge everyone to discuss the issue like we're supposed to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Verbosity does not equate to legitimacy. You've made your claims, and are certainly welcome to try and defend your actions, but how about you stop WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:FILIBUSTERING. You are not the arbiter of this situation - your determinations are subject to the views of others. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It's a truism, I think, that muddying the waters tends to dirty one's own shoes as well... ——Serial ^# 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• If you are going to make false claims against me, I am going to correct them. That is not bludgeoning. As for verbosity, well, that I am guilty of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, that was Netoholic, fighting over that caption a while ago? I remember seeing that. And now they're edit warring over "far-right" and that DHS statement? The evidence for "far-right" is so overwhelming (I mean, in Military Times?) that these edits are simply ridiculous. The argument for that Facebook post is ridiculous as well, and suggests CIR. I think both should be topic-banned from the AP2 topic area, and I'd do it myself if I hadn't just scolded Netoholic for some disruption pertaining to the Dixie Chicks. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't it really time to show Netoholic the door with a site ban, after years of these convoluted extreme disruptions on a wide array of articles, talk pages, and noticeboards? SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's that bad, SPECIFICO; I mean, I've seen, on occasion, some weird POV edits made from that account, but if you want a site ban you'll have to come up with a strong case. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Drmies: Understood. I do not have the time these days to gather diffs, but many of those who watch this page will remember the histories of his many previous sanctions and dramatics. The first one I knew was when he tried to edit an absurd definition of "philosopher" into our article Philosopher so that, among other POV nonsense, he could call far-right blogger Stefan Molyneux a philosopher in the first sentence. Fortunatey he got a TBAN and the article now says "Molyneux ...is a far-right, white nationalist podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views." I mean, if anyone is inclined to post the evidence here, there would be no doubt what to do. Sorry, I will drop out now. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Drmies - "weird POV edits"? C'mon, that's so baseless its barely even an WP:ASPERSION. In the specific case of the article being discussed here, its clear from the current talk page discussion that the situation is not so cut-and-dry, and that there are valid points on either side. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Shit, SPECIFICO, you're right, and I remember that Molyneux nonsense. And I looked through the history (where I didn't find myself, not in that dispute), and that's like a time sink of 1500 edits. For the record, I closed a tiny discussion, see Talk page, Archive 8, not involving Netoholic. Yeah, I support an AP2 ban, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO, An AP2 ban is much more likely to fly. Guy (help!) 22:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I hope that also will cover things like "bias of Wikipedia" and race and gender issues. Those are the only article page areas in which I've encountered him. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO - Well, when you only edit in those political subject areas its natural that's where you encounter -everyone-. I don't specialize. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Netoholic challenged the label "right-wing" on boogaloos and the photo of Hawaiian shirts with military garb and guns. Both of these are very well documented. Back in 2014, the diff SPECIFICO was looking for was this one where Netoholic gives a right-wing racist his own platform to define himself in a friendly manner as a philosopher. These sorts of edits make me conclude that Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence. How low must he go before we ban him? I think we're there already. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• No idea why you pulled a random single edit diff out to make your point when you should have linked to the full RfC on use of "philosopher" which, by the way was -not- a landslide, but resulted in not using it - a decision I disagreed with and yet have upheld as consensus to this day. That is the -same- as I did for the issue about the Boogaloo image, and what I would do for the use of "far-right" in that article if an RfC later shows that consensus. My god, get some perspective - not everyone who is skeptical of strong terms being stated in WP:VOICE is "defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence". Holy cow - is this what political rhetoric has become? No quarter given, everyone is the worst extreme? This is not acceptable behavior, Binks - its BATTLEGROUND and I reject it. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, no, that's not the same as you did with the boogaloo image at all. When that discussion turned out in favor of the image being kept, you went to Commons to circumvent the outcome by trying to get it deleted there. This is the permalink to the discussion at the time when you started the Commons deletion discussion; it shows that you only initiated the discussion after the discussion here on enwiki had ended with agreement that the image should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Commons has its own inclusion policies and community. In the interest of protecting Wikimedia from potential legal and moral issues, I took it to that community to make their own determination. -- Netoholic @ 00:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I have had a few interactions with this editor that have been unnecessarily uncivil and ended with both parties edit warring. I think a history of combative, acerbic and uncivil editing is evident when looking at Netoholic's history. They rarely discuss issues at talk pages and when they do it's rarely civil. I feel like they are disruptive and unwilling to change, at least in regards to subjects relating to right wing politics. They are uncivil, frequently accuse other editors of acting in bad faith and regularly involved in edit wars.Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ah here they all come. Since Bacondrum is casting ASPERSIONS without links, I'll have to contradict him. The ONLY article we've closely interacted was recently at Virtue signalling after he'd first nuked the content then submitted a ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtue signalling which SNOW-failed. Things didn't go his way - that's the only reason he's piling on here. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And right on cue for the vitriol. Case in point - doesn't listen, doesn't want to change, not interested in being civil. A disruptive editor. Have a short look through their edit history, the combative and uncivil nature of this editors interactions with other users becomes clear very quickly. It's not Netoholic's fault they are being "piled on", it has nothing to do with their own behavior, it's everyone else's fault that they are constantly engaged in edit wars and other argy-bargy.Bacondrum (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Just look at some of the bad faith accusations directed at GorillaWarfare above. Anyone who has interacted with GorillaWarfare knows those are unreasonable and unfounded accusations. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ah here they all come. I think that this outlook basically shows the problem. Yes, of course the AP2 topic area is contentious, but it's precisely because of that that we have to try and maintain at least some degree of civility and WP:AGF-attude towards each other, even when we strenuously disagree on matters of sourcing, weight, interpretation, and how to summarize these things; sometimes people with differing outlooks on the world can legitimately disagree on even the entirely-encyclopedic way to handle a contentious topic. You have consistently refused to extend that faith towards the people you disagree with on political topics. See eg. here, here, here + here, and here, just for some recent ones. --Aquillion (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• The diff-less accusations against me in this thread are what is uncivil and wildly-lacking of AGF (did you see "Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence" above?), yet you don't comment on them. You had to go back a month to find 4 diffs in my history (of which none are uncivil and, in fact, one is openly compassionate), some others are trying to go back 6 years. Is it possible that this thread, like happens too often elsewhere in AP2, piling-on and double standards are being used in order to just attempt to take a chess piece off the board? -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm I've seen a whole bunch of diffs by now, and I don't think the chess analogy is very helpful here. You're badgering every single person here--there are better metaphors to use. You're not so much a chess piece as a big concrete block in the middle of a busy sidewalk. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• If I were silent, you'd say I had no defense or take it as a tacit admission of guilt; and the impartial readers would not know the context of why people might be piling on. I have the right to respond. Whats disappointing is that your analogy characterizes me as an immovable object which is simple 'in the way' - is that really fair? Is that how you AGF and treat me civilly? -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• The very fact that we are here, and I am giving reasons for why I think you should be banned from this topic area, means I have given up your good faith. Isn't that obvious? I believe you have a right-wing POV, at the very least, that renders you incapable of editing our articles neutrally, of following our policies, of participating in a collaborative project which aims to write quality encyclopedic articles. I don't know what's uncivil about that, by the way. I haven't called you names, although maybe you can guess what I think about people who abuse Wikipedia in order to whitewash articles on right-wing, far-right, white supremacist topics. So yes, I think you are in the way. In hindsight, the Molyneux business six years ago should have led to a (topic) ban. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Just for discussion, is there anyone in this thread that you believe has a left-wing POV? And BTW, I am not right-wing - I simply think that strong POV language (sometimes anti-right, sometimes anti-left) in our articles should be tempered from extremes where evidence is not there to support it in our WP:VOICE. Even in regards to the original purpose of this ANI report, GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" - not even a majority - so our objections to its inclusion are at least reasonably valid (we'll see how the RfC turns out). I do nothing here on WP based dogmatically on my personal POV - hell, my interests are wildly esoteric and I don't even focus on political topics... unlike some editors in this thread that seem to dedicate themselves to that area daily. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You could always acknowledge that you have been uncivil and disruptive and try to do better in the future. Refusing to see the problem isn't helping. Civility and collaboration are cornerstones of Wikipedia, they are not optional. You make it really unpleasant for everyone else when you make acerbic comments and edit war, and it's not necessary. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely getting this many other editors noses out of joint should make you question how you are conducting yourself here? Bacondrum (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I remember butting heads with Neto last year over the Women-in-Red AFD thing, the NPROF thing, the WikiProject Men thing, and the Chairman/Chairperson move, among others. Neto was blocked in July 2019 for edit warring and after that, the account's activity was significantly reduced until March 2020. Plenty of good edits in March and April, but once they come into conflict, forget-about-it, back to the same old. Edit warring at Magdalene Visaggio and bludgeoning Talk:Magdalene Visaggio#Birth name; at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Edit war; at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and see various threads on that talk page; improper use of SYNTH tag and edit warring over it at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery (1 2 3); plus, the edit warring described above in the OP.
  Neto's first block for edit warring was 15 years ago. Admittedly, their block log isn't actually as bad as it looks at first (I guess we didn't have rules about wheel warring before 2006), but it seems whenever they actively edit, they actively edit war. Three edit warring blocks in the roughly one year between June 2018 and July 2019, and since their return to full editing in March 2020, it's quickly become a repeat of the same edit warring behavior. And it doesn't seem limited to AP2. I think a sitewide 1RR restriction would help reduce disruption. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to or in place of an AP2 topic ban? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to, I guess. My concern is if it's just an AP2 tban, Neto will change their topic area but not their underlying approach. For example, the stuff last May through Nov was gender stuff, not AP2, e.g. [60], [61] (discussing [62]), [63], [64] (suggesting, for lead image of Woman, [65] and [66]), [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. Now it's AP2. What'll be next? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Those links are just discussions. Do you think my particular viewpoint on those discussions is what makes me deserve a sanction? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you really not see how your general approach is uncivil and combative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

@Netoholic: No, I don't. Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

A while back, I too had experiences like this with respect to pages dealing with the political views of college professors, and in particular, with the POV that US academia has been taken over by leftists. (Or maybe taken over by Drmies and me.) It's worth looking at Talk:Political views of American academics, and particularly Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC about HERI survey and Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC on inclusion of HERI data chart, where Netoholic tried to push such a POV, and his position was soundly rejected by the RfC respondents. There are similar discussions at Talk:Passing on the Right, about a book that takes a minority view among secondary sources, and at Talk:Neil Gross, a BLP about a respected scholar of academic politics, where I had concerns about BLP violations intended to discredit the page subject. Assuming that WP:ACDS#Awareness has been satisfied, it seems to me that an uninvolved admin should consider using DS under AmPol here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, all those links just show me participating in discussions and expressing various viewpoints that at best turned out to be non-majority in the RfCs, but hardly radical. "US academia has been taken over by leftists" is YOUR words, not mine - I've never said anything like that. I have to ask - do you disagree with the ample literature that shows that the population of left-wing academics far outnumbers right-wing? The scholarly data that shows that its a widely-held, majority view. But since you have identified yourself and Drmies as being left-wing academics, I have to ask, are you seeking sanction on me just to WP:USTHEM? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I never said anything of the sort about either Drmies or myself in that parenthetical joke. And I never called you radical. My concern has always been your failure to adhere to NPOV (whether you profess to see it, or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Requesting a block on Valereee

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

---

Hi. The user Valereee has been exhibiting disruptive editing, that is now chronic. I'm asking for a block since I've tried everything else, and the result is the users behavior is more entrenched.

•User disrupts editing through CFork of a topic on Talk:Killing of George Floyd/ [change video image], which user admits to have forked (see below)

"Pasdecomplot, I inserted the subsection head because an IP didn't know whether it needed its own section, and I decided it did. That insertion doesn't stop the consensus process above it. You can still continue that discussion up there. You can find instructions at WP:TALKPAGE, which once again I highly recommend you read as it explains all this stuff. —valereee (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"Gosh, thanks valereee. I found WP:CFork, POV content forking which can disrupt consensus building, a big no-no. Is this correct? Or, is it sub-pages (sub-topics in this case) which should be defined in the topic's title, if I understood correctly. (But, this conversation should have been added on my talk page, no?) Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

•User disrupts editing by going off-topic chronically to attack my lack of editing skills, unnecessarily. The personal attacks stifle the consensus process. Many of these chronic and personal disruptions are archived, but a few of those on a current topic remain.

•User has been asked to stop, but won't. User continues to engage when their messages aren't welcome. Instead of engaging off the article's talk page, user continues to try and engage inappropriately on the article's talk page (see below). "I'm sorry, Pasdecomplot, I'm not following? (And the last time I added an explanation to your talk, you reverted it with an edit summary that said it was unwelcome there, which I took to mean you'd prefer I not post to your talk unnecessarily. I'm happy to continue this there if that's what you'd prefer.) —valereee (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)"

•In effect, the user has now become like a predator that won't stop. I don't think Wikipedia would want to encourage the user's behaviors. I've tried everything, from being nice to ignoring the user, from asking them to stop, from deleting their messages on my talk page to re-engaging. But after the 18:09, 26 June 2020 message above, it's gone too far.

It's possible a block would change the dynamics, and allow the user to realize they've overstepped the line of civility to the point where they are willingly being abusive since they are aware their engagement is not welcome.

If a block isn't accepted, can we please block the users ability to read my work, and their ability to stalk me through discussion topics, even those which do not include them in my talk page? Thank you for all the help, and I wish I didn't feel it necessary to ask for help.Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(I'll try posting this discussion again now; the previous attempt failed)

@Pasdecomplot: For one, you have failed to notify Valereee of this discussion. For two, you have not provided diffs or links to the relevant edits. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have left the customary notice on your behalf. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, you have neglected to attach diffs to your report. Like God and the Devil, the truth often is in the details. El_C 20:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Valereee you have twice blocked this editor for short periods of time (three hours for failure to read and abide by WP:OR and WP:RS and four hours for refusing to learn to ident properly) but this is in relation to a subject in which you have been heavily involved (Talk:George Floyd and Talk:Killing of George Floyd are your two most edited Talk pages) so I do wonder if you should be taking administrative actions here per WP:INVOLVED. I understand Pasdecomplot is a frustrating editor to deal with but you could have asked another admin to intervene.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Valereee, P-K3 is right. Either you do the content or you do the admining. You can't do both. El_C 21:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. It felt to me like a behavior issue rather than a content issue, as literally all of the issues were about how we work, but I can understand that it didn't feel that way. —valereee (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, next time, please feel free to just drop me a line. It's a troubled topic area, so I can see future problems like that being likely to arise. Anyway, please do not hesitate. El_C 23:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, that's what I should have done, and I appreciate the offer. —valereee (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, always. El_C 23:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Concur. Also, not sure a block for "refusing to indent" is proper. See discussion here: User_talk:Pasdecomplot#"aligning_left_for_easier_reading_again". Levivich's approach to the issue was far more appropriate, by attempting to explain and offer advice with scripts, before a block (if one is even appropriate). I've seen editors blatantly messing up page structure (on transcluded templates!) because they can't format properly (especially bad at AfD), and even they don't get blocked. (Sidecomment, and I'm absolutely not saying this has anything to do with Valereee, but George Floyd related articles are becoming very toxic to edit, and I feel bad for any new user who begins on Wikipedia by contributing to those) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, to be fair, I left an extremely similar explanation (my third, I believe) at the editor's talk. They deleted it with an edit summary saying it was an unwelcome message. I and other have asked this editor to learn to indent multiple times, explained how to indent multiple times, explained why it's important multiple times, linked to WP:TALK multiple times. I've also recommended that a new editor at a contentious article is a bad combination. —valereee (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Users making conspiracy theories about me.

I think this is going out of hand in some certain Islam-related articles. Leo1pard (talk · contribs) makes conlusions about me and accuses me of biased edits, although they are all in accordance with the sources and I am always open for debate, if a source is challanged to determine the accuracity of sources. He concludes due to my interest in gnosticism and sufism, and because I defend vandalism against the Iblis article (the part where he is not seen as a jinn but as an angel is often disputed by Muslims today), he accuses me of siding with the devil. I think this is going to a direction worth to be reported. He also disputes about me with other Users and telling them his conspiracy theories about me.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I recommend you provide diffs so people don't have to spend time going searching. Canterbury Tail talk 21:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

So User:Canterbury Tail's comment was really useful. If you had been more specific, I wouldn't have looked for evidence, coming across this edit. (Hint, if someone says "it's ungrammatical", maybe you should figure out what the problem is.) The edits and edit summaries in that article don't reflect well on you. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And they just did it again. BTW, VFF, the source you cite doesn't mention the story as "canonical", which discusses how a popular myth got connected to a Qur'anic verse. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The source says, that such stories became "canonized" due to their popularity. It is quiet common in islam that teachings became canon via non-canonical scripture, just like the name Azrael for the angel of death. So what is wrong about it?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Never posted a diff-link before. Does this one help?: [[72]]. What Drmies talks about is something entirely else. Rather unexplained reverts and give out unjustified warnings. But this is not the matter here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Look up WP:BOOMERANG. You're still edit warring and making POINTy edits. I am going to report you for edit warring, since this is really irritating. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail I can provide you with differences, but this is a long story:

Firstly, VenusFeuerFalle had made this edit to List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran, saying "demons are not a sub group of jgenies (at least not more than angels are). Also fixing the header for "Supernatural" it was messed up."

I then decided to use the word Shayāṭīn, which applies to "evil Jinn" (Islamic POV) like Iblis (who is also regarded as a fallen angel), with the references being listed in Talk:Iblis.

Before I put in those references, Venus insisted "they (Shayāṭīn and Jinn are stil distinct. and no, Surah 18:50 is not a good source (one of the reasons why we avoid OR on wikipedia)."

After some other edits by Venus, I then corrected some peculiar glitches with 2 references (Webster's references had an improper part in the location: "|location=Woodbury, he will blow the trumpet when the day comes to the end Minn" and I corrected "|work=Encyclopaedia |publisher=Britannica" in the 2nd reference to "|encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia Britannica"), and I put in all these WP:RS to say "Don't you know that the Devil (Iblis) is regarded as both a Jinn and a Shaytan?"

Venus then removes all these the reliable sources that I put in, besides reversing my corrections to these 2 references (like putting ", he will blow the trumpet when the day comes to the end Minn" back into the section of "location" in the first reference), saying "shayatin is a seperate type of creature (children of Iblis). Iblis is regarded as an angel, a jinn or somethign entirely else, depending on source and Quran-interpretation, but always becomes a shaitan. As long as we assign Iblis to the shayatin everything should be correct. But shayatin are not simply "evil jinn". They are only "jinn" in the sense of invisiblity, twhich also applies to angels." as if his WP:POV is important enough to remove a whole bunch of reliable sources!

I then undid his revert, protesting against his removal of reliable sources, saying "Not according to the WP:RS that I posted!" besides correcting these 2 references, but then Venus removed the references and messed up these 2 references again, saying "your sources do not cover up your claim at all. Some deal with Iblis affiliation and also tell the same as I told above. So I recommand you to read the sources you use completely. Second they do not categorize the spiritual creatures. For what I would recommand you Amira El Zein (Intelligent world of the jinn), there the several creatures are explained in their attributes and different categories."

Then I tried to reason with him, and others whom he got into a dispute or contact with, here and there, but he persisted with nearly edit-warring against me here and there, and he incorrectly said that a primary source did not say that Iblis is a Jinn to the IP address, for which I had to refute him using the Verse to say that according to the Qur'an, Iblis was a Jinn (since Venus was talking about the Qur'an), but Venus continued to pretend that the Verse didn't say that Iblis was a Jinn, and after I warned him to stop this WP:Bias, Venus then decided to report me for WP:Vandalism (when he himself is guilty of that ([73] [74], despite repeated warnings from me ([75] [76]) that he can't just go round deleting reliable sources to support his POV, not to mention that he was nearly edit-warring with me). Surprised at his stance, I decided to investigate why he would go against something that is commonly believed by Muslims (that Iblis was a Jinn and Shaytan (Devil) who was an enemy of God), and here are some things that I saw:

1) He states that he is a Sufi, among other things.

2) From earlier sections in this talk-page about Iblis (On the origin of Iblis and Is Iblis Allah's enemy?), VenusFeuerFalle took a somewhat pro-Iblis view, or a view about Iblis that ran contrary to the views of mainstream Muslims:

A) In Is Iblis Allah's enemy?, Venus said "One of the synonyms given to Iblis is "enemy of Allah", probably rooted in folklore to avoid pronouncing his name, since, according to some folklore, if someone speaks his name, he is present. The idea of Iblis as enemy of God probably rooted in Zorastrian influences, such as Shanameh, but Islamic theology (including several interpretations) does not depict him as the enemy of God but of Gods way for humanity."

B) In On the origin of Iblis, Venus got into an argument with another user.

C) After an IP address made the section Iblis as an Angel to say ""And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord." This is coming straight from the Qur'an (18:50), which is the highest source of authority in Islam." Venus got into an argument with this user also, saying "What is your point? I mean, the verse is explained in great detail, including the exegesis on the verse. Literally, the Quran does not even say "jinn" in Arabic" but "jinni", while the creature created from "smokeless fire", that is actually either "marijin min nar" or "nar as samum", that is more appropriately translated as "mixture of fire" and "poisonous fire" (s-m-m from the Semitic root for "poison" or "venom") is "Jann" not even "jinn". Therefore, there is no reason to use the verse to exclude Iblis from being an angel based on the source. And many Muslims are aware of it, and the disucssion also entered the works of the mufassirs (exegetes). When you argue, the Quran determines that Islam is, when we should use the Quran Arabic language and not a translation done later, especialy not, when the transaltions are restricted to a narrow range of interpretations and traditions. And when we encoutner that scholars have a deviant or even contrary reading of the Quran than we have today, we should wonder, there the change was made. For Wikipedia, there our own research is discouraged, and we only gather the work already done by scholars, going into detail is unnecessary."

Thus I remarked: "Putting these (the evidences, including this reply of Venus) together, it seems that VenusFeuerFalle is one of those Sufis who take a positive view of Iblis," not that he definitely is, and Venus did something which surprised me. When replying to me and another user here, he said "And no "shayatin" are not "simply evil jinn". Evil jinn as called "Shayatin", but there are also "Shayatin" as a seperate group. If you would actually read Robbert lebling you would know this. He states on page 22: Evil jinn are of three kinds: 1. fallen angels (shayatin) (this are by the way the actual "shayatin") ..." In other words, he is now saying that fallen angels can be regarded as being among the kinds of evil Jinn. This is in contrast to his earlier stance that the views on whether Iblis was a fallen angel or jinn were irreconcilable, when I was trying to say that they were reconcilable all along! Leo1pard (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

request for "review with a possibility of a range block"

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

---

23.53 hours ago, I requested semi-protection of the article Eagle Eye, saying IP editors are making edits in contravention of WP:ES, WP:FILMPLOT, MOS:PUNCTSPACE, WP:NOR, WP:CAT, and WP:BRD. I have repeatedly attempted to engage them on the talk page, receiving only a single comment for my efforts. It is my hope that an inability undo will either compel discussion and/or dissuade the edit war. 407 minutes later, Ad Orientem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=964550029&oldid=964549511 declined my request saying, This looks like a single editor operating within a /64 range. If attempts at communication fail, and after suitable warnings for disruptive editing, you should go to WP:ANI and request a review with a possibility of a range block. I see five different IPs making edits; I'm reluctant to warn each individual IP because either it's five separate editors who haven't returned, or it's a single editor who won't see a warning when they return with a new IP address. IAW Ad Orientem's suggestion, I'm requesting input here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any editing since yesterday morning, and near twenty hours before I declined your request at RfPP. What has happened since then? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my concern, unless there is something I am missing here (always possible), there has been no editing by the parties concerned in the last 36 hrs give or take, which makes this rather stale. We don't block either punitively or proactively, but only as a last resort to protect the project from disruption. As far as I can tell, the disruption has ceased. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I just reverted the IP, so we will wait and see. El_C 22:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by 1292simon

I'm starting this discussion again as no action was taken against 1292simon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in the previous discussion. This user edits BMW articles in a series and adds his preferential changes while deleting content for no reason. Especially at the Espcially at the BMW 5 Series (F10), BMW 5 Series (G30), BMW 3 Series (E36) and BMW 3 Series (E46) articles. As seen on Talk:BMW 5 Series (F10), this user is trying to force his preferred changes to these articles without even attempting to obtain consensus and constantly using WP:BABY in his defense. He was previously warned to stop this edit pattern but instead of avoiding to do that, he continues with the same edit pattern. I request the administration to take appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U1Quattro (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello ANI folks. It is unclear exactly what happened in the 11 hours since the previous thread that warrants another ANI report? Or is U1Quattro trying some double jeopardy thing here? Anyways, here are my article edits during the timeframe in question, I'm happy to discuss if anyone has questions/concerns: Toyota HiAce, Manual transmission, Manual transmission. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Please compile the relevant diffs. El_C 02:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal, deletion of infobox field and summarising for no reason, same summarising with the infobox, removal of production dates for no reason, removal of infobox fields for no reason, removal of infobox fields and properly sourced content for being unsourced, removal of production dates. These are a few of the diffs of the edit pattern of this user.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Man, these mobile diffs are a drag to read or convert to normal diffs. El_C 02:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm on mobile right now, not on a PC. So there's that.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I gathered. Oh well. El_C 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

1292simon it is about your edits pattern which you continue to follow even after being warned in a previous ANI discussion to obtain a consensus about what you're doing. You continue to trim out details from the infobox and remove properly sourced content from BMW articles for no clear reason.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff for the previous ANI discussion? I searched the archives and couldn't find one. Mysticdan (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is the warning Mysticdan.U¹ _quattro TALK 08:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I was kind of forgetful about the notice board. It was actually a report at WP:AN3.U¹ _quattro TALK 08:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

There was also a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#Disruptive edits by 1292simon, to which there were no responses. —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

None of those diffs are any newer than 8 days ago. I don't see a pressing need for administrative action as a result. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with C.Fred. I would also add, U1Quattro, that looking at the talk page Talk:BMW 5 Series (F10), it seems that 1292simon went right to the talk page after you reverted him, and you immediately went to casting aspersions. I understand you might get frustrated, but all the threats of administration action aren't helpful (or likely true) since admin don't get involved with content, only behavior. Simon is probably getting a bit too bold, but so are you. You both need to take it to a talk page and either have an RFC for the type of changes Simon wants to put in, or hammer it out some how, but this seems to be a good old fashioned content dispute, so there isn't anything for admin to do at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes but at BMW 3 Series (E36) and at BMW 5 Series (G30), content was removed without reason. I was just restoring the article to the way it was before. On the other hand, this user is pressing on with the changes and is introducing them in a series in BMW articles without any reason or explanation Dennis Brown. Edit summaries like "Infobox" are not good enough reason for such drastic changes to the infobox. At BMW 5 Series (F10), another user also disagreed with the changes 1292simon was making but he still resorted to edit warring.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking specifically at the F10 article, I do not see edits by 1292simon that rise to the level of edit warring. Or, if they do, then U1Quattro is even more guilty of edit warring with their greater number of reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I note that at the G30 article, U1Quattro added a large chunk of unsourced material, 1292simon reverted it pointing out why, and U1 re-inserted it, claiming that removing it was "disruptive editing" [77]. That doesn't look great, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1292simon here. Regarding the other article where the accusation is "content was removed without reason", I made a dummy edit straight after the one in question, in order to add an Edit Summary (fat finger error... IIRC I accidentally pressed the Enter key instead of Shift key when at the start of typing in an Edit Summary). It's pretty obvious what happened, so U1Quattro probably knows this and is just trying to score a point here. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite the material was properly sourced and sources were present in the article, infact at the end of the section. Three sources were present. You're taking assumptions without even reading the sources.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

1292simon and you're trying to be innocent by making statements like that I knew that you were making dummy edits. No I don't and don't have the time to see the dummy edits and neither what keys you're pressing. I check the edits in main space and you removed content without reason which is what the main space indicates. You are in the wrong here, accept that. The diff you posted is not even a dummy edit either.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Help regarding edits by User:Febb011

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

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

 Confirmed to each other:

• IndependentInformer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• IndependentAndTruth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TheTruthExplorerZZ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Febb011 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

One of them temporarily had a COI userbox but removed it. Seems a bit fishy to me. I'll block them all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:IamBasavaprabhu

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

---

User:IamBasavaprabhu has copied his writings in Meta to his enwiki user page. This page should be deleted as U5 but can't be as it is not hosted here. I have warned the user but as I am not a user of Meta, nor familiar with its workings, can we get someone else to take a look? The page is making a religious argument in a user page. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. I reported this in Meta.wiki and and admin deleted the page as "out of scope for Meta". -- Alexf^(talk) 15:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Revert of LTA needed on Wiki News

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

---

Please can someone revert the trolling made from My Royal Young on Wiki News (i.e. revert these contributions). I can't do that myself because I have been blocked by the abuse filter (here) and these images should not really be there. Thank you, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nor can we Iggy the Swan, it's a separate wiki. You'll need one of the admins there to do it. Cabayi (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Pi zero has took into the action to revert all. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette by User:Beyond_My_Ken

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

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

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

• The top of this page - "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." All of the edit-warring happened five days ago, and there was a small discussion on the talk page which hasn't been posted to for three days. I don't see an issue that needs urgent admin attention? Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• You sure know a lot of wikibuzz words and buttons for someone with only 45 edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remember, it takes two to tango. If someone is edit warring with you, you are both edit warring. But here, nobody broke the WP:3RR, and it was peacefully talked out. I don't see BMK's comment as particularly uncivil. Could he have assumed more good faith? Probably. But considering that you are a new editor in a super contentious area, please understand that people have some suspicions. Instead of reverting BMK, you should have immediately taken it to the talk page, which would have gotten a much more positive response. All in all, I see this as a general learning experience, and see no likely sanctions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wide-spread issues of vandalism by multiple anonymous editors here

I recently put in a request for page protection of this article. The request details persistent vandalism by several anonymous editors. Each and every one of these editors have been arbitrarily changing the episode air dates on the article in question. Despite numerous invitations for them to do so, none of them are taking the opportunity to cite any sources verifying the informattion they are providing, nor are they taking the matter to the talk page, which they have also been repeatedly invited to do. This is a wide-spread, multi-user effort to disrupt the content of that page, and it's obvious the offending editors have no intention of genuinely contributing to the content and accuracy of the information on that page. Because this is such a wide-spread effort coming from multiple IPs, I am not able to individually warn them against continuing that conduct. I am therefore requesting immediate administrative action against all who have played a part in this issue, which has been a wide-spread problem for weeks and months, with no end in sight. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you had to revert these IPs three or four times in the past three weeks, and a few times before that. All you really need to solve the problem is temporary page protection, and you've asked for that fifteen minutes before this post.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Over the last week, it has been less than one per day. You can surely find the time to template one person a day. The IPs are from all over the US, but I'm not convinced it is a concerted effort, for if it is, they aren't very active. I suggest templating the one making mistakes with the right template, which is not the vandalism template, but the "without sources" template. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I am weighing in here again. Firstly, the comments here relating to my report are both technically correct and also technically incorrect. The technical correctness is in the fact that over the last week, there has not been too significant a degree of problems in relation to the issue I described. So if we were talking about the page on the basis of these problematic edits solely within that time, it is correct that I can handle dealing with isolated instances myself. However, the latest string of unverified changes that are not being discussed have been added to the history of the same type of problem that has been occurring on the page off-and-on with varying degrees of misbeahavior for the last half-decade or so at least.

For the truth of that part of this issue, I present as evidence of the ongoing problems the specific numbered threads as found on the article talk page. The coversations that deal directly with the long-standing issue are found under the topics numbered 8, 9, 23, and 24, just to name the ones most prominently relevant to this long-standing problem that continues to this day. Those conversations demonstrate that these arbitrary date changes have been a problem since 2014 off-and-on, with that being further verified by the number of times in the last 2-4 years that the nature of that vandalism has necessitated a page protection request. Additionally, I recognize that with no one else verifying what I am reporting here, my report may not be taken as accurate. As a second witness, LightandDark2000 has been involved in many prior discussions relating to these unilateral, frequent, wide-spread changes being repeatedly made by anonymous editors who do not cite sources to verify the validity of those edits, and who have thus far refused to discuss the changes, and in fact have repeatedly violated the general consensus that supports reliable sourcing as the basis for such changes.

If ws were talking about an issue occurring over a limited period of time (such as a week), or a situation where page protection had not been requested repeatedly because of this issue, or a situation that had not continued for more than a half-decade, it would be something I could easily handle myself, and, in fact, requesting intervention here for this issue would then truly be at the height of laziness on my part. But this has been a consistent, wide-spread problem, and the page history of both the main article and its' associated talk page, along with the additional corroboration of the facts by at least one other user hopefully serves as verification that this is something that no one editor or group of editors can handle on our own. I have been an editor here on Wikipedia for almost a full 1.5 decades, and if this was something I could handle on my own, I wouldn't have even broached this subject on this page. I recognize that Wikipedia administrators are busy with issues that would be far more significant than this one if the problem in this case were just a matter of a few isolated instances. But I hope the additional context I have provided by this latest comment proves helpful in enabling all who read it to understand that these are far from isolated instances, and that the matter of the continuing problem needs more attention than I as just a normal editor of the page am able to provide on my own. If nothing that I have additionally laid out here changes the situation, then all I can do is apologize for having wasted your time by mentioning it here. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: when you say "wide-spread", do you actually mean "long term"?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Afer Ephraimite

Afer Ephraimite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A new single-purpose account who is misrepresenting the sources he's using, pushing a WP:POV and adding fringe/outdated material to the article against mainstream consensus on the matter. Judging from the fact that their second edit after creating their account (in the same day!) shows high mastery of reference usage, he's clearly not a new user! And he knows how to indent (even experienced editor are struggling with this.) After I reverted his edits he wrote in his edit summary "undid berberist edits". I don't think calling someone a Berberist (a.k.a nationalist) is civil. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and I'm suspecting sockpuppetery. Again he said in a discussion that I'm removing reliable sources to push a "berberist agenda". He also show signs of I just don't like it when confronted with authoritative sources (the Encyclopedia Of Islam). I reported him on 16 June but no discussions have occured. He reverted again today ([78]) and again ([79]). Can someone take a look at this case?-TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Walrasiad made a report about this user at AN3 (report). -TheseusHeLl (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

MyFakeVersion of Drag Race Season 13 is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

MyFakeVersion of Drag Race Season 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Take a look at their userpage. That's all I have to say. Found 'em from patrolling Special:Log/newusers. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 02:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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