• Stayfree76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been watching talk:Death of George Floyd, Derek Chauvin and talk:George Floyd for some time. Stayfree76 is a new user (2020-07-02) with under 300 edits. Of those, well over 100 are to these three talk pages, where he advances a pro-police POV often employing novel theories. His mainspace edits are few, and include, for example, this, where he "corrected" Chauvin and Floyd's overlapping shifts as security guards with Chauvin having worked there "as an off duty police officer" whilen Floyd worked as a security guard. I'm not aware that "off duty police officer" is an actual job. His comments on the talk pages are now into WP:NOTFORUM territory, IMO, and are prolonging argument rather than settling any substantive points of content. I suspect that these contentious pages would be quieter and more productive without his input for a while. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support tban from George Floyd, broadly construed - Stayfree unfortunately takes up an inordinate amount of other editors' time with unhelpful talk page argumentation, which includes a lot of OR and FORUM-type posts, such as substituting what secondary sources say in favor of their own OR or interpretation of primary sources, as well as arguing that various things are against policy when Stayfree appears to really misunderstand the relevant policy. Example:

• Talk:George Floyd/Archive 1#Misleading/False Information, which involves arguing that what is in the article cited to secondary sources should be replaced with their own OR interpretation of a police bodycam transcript. Other editors' repeated entreaties to WP:OR were unheeded. Stayfree then started a duplicate conversation at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Problem with details as described.
• Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Misinformation in the section Minneapolis police response, wherein he argues that content that is explicitly verified by eight sources in the paragraph at issue is SYNTH. When a ninth source explicitly stating the same thing is shown to Stayfree, Stayfree argued that the paragraph had to go unless the ninth source was added, as if the other eight sources didn't say the same thing.
• There are more examples at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, Talk:George Floyd, Talk:Derek Chauvin, the archives of all three pages, and Stayfree's talk page.
• More than just being incorrect about policy, is an I'm-never-wrong attitude.

This editor seems to mean well, but simply doesn't have enough experience to productively participate in these discussions, and they don't seem to be taking feedback on board or adjusting their approach at all. Lev!vich 18:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a person involved I don't want to say any more than to agree with the summary above by Levivich. Basic lack of knowledge of wikipedia practices aside, I am happy to work with new editors constructively, but the user here repeatedly either misrepresented sources by omitting key information, or refused to accept the sources said what they said even when the words were quoted to them.

Persistent attempts to use wikipedia policy incorrectly seemed like a quote mining exercise by the user. Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i felt like i should throw this out there. i have never had an edit to main page reverted. some have been adjusted, but the one about the police officer thing... well im the one that started the discussion over a month ago and the change was made by another editor as the page was still protected. and the other pages needed to be changed for consistency.

• JzG publicly stated he was on a active campaign to get me banned here
• Levivich, is on record saying But the most important thing is we tell the reader what actually happened, moreso than telling the reader what some incorrectly reported.. here
• and Koncorde, doesnt seem to understand the difference between citing a source "somewhere in the paragraph" instead of following the statement. i was trying to inform them that having the source cited in some random place does not help and makes the statement look unverified when checked. StayFree76 ^talk 21:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Stayfree76, no, I did not say I was on an active campaign to get you banned. I noted that your approach was a fast track to a ban, which is not the same thing at all. You already got formally warned about personal attacks, for example. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your words here's the deal: you stop trying to use Wikipedia to fix the fact that the sources are "wrong", and I'll stop advocating for your removal from the article that is the primary topic of your obsession.StayFree76 ^talk 22:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is literally right there where the statement is. Given you still haven't accepted the sources say what the sources say, I cannot take anything you say as good faith. You haven't suggested moving a source. You haven't suggested rearranging content that doesn't also include removing the sourced information. You have only suggested entirely removing sourced information because you said it isn't sourced in the sources that directly say the thing you say it doesn't. Any arguments made have been inherently misleading, off topic, or misrepresentation of the sources. Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ill just leave this quote from me here. ok, so why isnt the Minnesota Post cited? the only one that says what the wiki says is not cited... maybe cite the source and call it good? you could have saved us all the time and just linked that source to begin with... next time, cite the source that says the thing that goes in the wiki. StayFree76 ^talk 22:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Minnesota Post is yet another source that says the thing you say the other existing sources dont. You still have not acknowledged the other sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koncorde, yup - and that is SOP for this user, alas. A time-sink, as Levivich says. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have found StayFree's contributions occasionally useful. I and others have warned them that contentious articles are a bad place to learn how to edit, to no avail. When a brand new editor comes in and the only thing they're interested in editing is the most contentious articles on the site, it just kind of wears me out. I think this editor is basically well-intentioned, but I do think they also have an agenda. I'm not sure it's compatible with editing contemporary American politics. —valereee (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can you find an example of an edit i made that got reverted? also, my change requests are at least 80% of the time put into the article ("occasionally" is a little hurtful, tbh). also, i have edited the following pages: Cherokee Nation, Cherokee Nation (1794–1907), Cherokee language, Comparison of firewalls, Defund the police, Derek Chauvin, Firewall (computing), George Floyd, Jeremiah Wolfe, Killing of George Floyd, Medicine man, Sergei Skripal. StayFree76 ^talk 01:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stayfree76, I apologize for saying something hurtful. There are many contributors whose contributions I find only occasionally useful. I'm pretty sure my own contributions are only occasionally useful. The point I'd love you to take is that working at contentious articles is a terrifically bad idea for a new editor. If you really are interested in building an encyclopedia, you'd say, "Oh, really? Okay, I'll go edit at (whatever else interests you) until I figure out what's going on here." But that's not what you're doing, which makes me think you have an agenda that is never going to change. It makes me think the reason you are here is not to build an encyclopedia. —valereee (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

valereee what agenda could i have? i was on record defending a Floyd from self incriminating himself with the "hooping" incident. this is the same as before. i read a sentence, click the cited source, read the course, propose/make changes as necessary to correctly represent the information. for example, the wiki said "kueng identified as african american"... but when you look at the source it said "kueng is african american" so i fixed it. maybe go look at the other wikis i have worked on? some of them were major. StayFree76 ^talk 01:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: @stayfree does seem to be making unhelful edits to that page for the reason they believe what is described in the official sources is different to their take on what happened. I am sure they are making these in good faith, but are new to Wiki (as am I) and dont appreciate the rules that govern what sources are allowed and what are not. And the fact that only what is stated in allowed sources should be printed and no original research or personal views should be added. I think @stayfree should take their concerns to the article talkpage and engage more to better understand what they need to do if they want to make changes to the article. Always be polite and assume goodfaith, trust me, on here that is very important (should be in life as well obviously) Just trying to push what you want into an article and being not 100% polite at the same time really will not help what you want to achieve. Discuss it @stayfree and you will get a consensus and hopefully make the article better for all Giant-Dwarfs (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: also wanted to point out that your user page shows you made an oath to Take the mantra of assuming good faith to within a whisker of absurdity. and i feel you are starting to divert from that. i am bringing this up because Welcome other editors pointing out to me when I fail to meet the first three pledges.. (this is not accusatory and simply how i feel and comes from a place of friendship.)StayFree76 ^talk 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stayfree76, the problem for me is that although you've been advised to go learn to edit somewhere not as contentious, you've insisted on learning to edit at contentious articles. This is a very common issue with problematic accounts, and most editors have seen editors with such an edit history turn out to be trolls. I'm not saying you are a troll. I'm just saying your edit pattern is one that is similar to many trolls. If you really are here to build an encyclopedia, please go find an article to edit that is not a contentious current event. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, SF76's top mainspace talk edits: 55 at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, 48 at Talk:Derek Chauvin, 38 at Talk:George Floyd. —valereee (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sample WP:FORUM talk page comment from StayFree76. It's OK to have an "agenda" if comments are not WP:OR, generally not WP:UNDUE viewpoints, and geared towards improving the article. I think most regular editors on Floyd articles have made an editorial comment at some point, some more obvious than others. But StayFree76 is developing a reputation for veering off a bit more. I'm OK if they can voluntarily provide us an actionable plan of how they will scale back.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, more tot he point, that's pretty much all they do. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I did make an edit based off a discussion they initiated at talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1#Misleading/False_Information. Still, I understand how people can be frustrated.—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: but that statement was in response to another editors "forum comment" and not just me randomly going in forum mode. the main thing here is that, i havent had a single edit reverted and at least 80% of my proposed changes went into effect. wouldn't those stats show that i am just trying to make Wikipedia better? i never make an edit i think someone would revert for any reason, as a personal policy, and i think that is clearly shown. at the same time, i have worked for the US federal government (held a secret clearance) and have worked for multiple state level government agencies including emergency services. things that may seem like OR are just simply from experience, but at the same time, you will never see me put that into a main without an RS. also, i have done a lot of post grad work. i am very in tune with making statements non pointy or knowing when to attribute, for example. for the people saying i am "a new editor that needs to learn", i have been writing academic reports, or professional write-ups on incidents (i work in cyber crime prevention/ internet security) for over 10 years and have also testified in court a few times as a "witness" to a crime. StayFree76 ^talk 16:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stayfree76, like I said earlier, there is leeway for "forum" comments. People are saying you have crossed that line. My suggestion is to listen to the feedback and tell us how you will address it, else it'll be left to a closer to decide what action, if any, to take. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ah, i see what you are saying. this is my final and official last statement on the matter then:

I feel i have done nothing wrong and the initial post to this is a WP:witch hunt, especially when the poster hasn't even engaged in any of those wikis in a long time. also, i feel the intent of this post was to be punitive and falls outside of The only purpose of blocking, banning, and other sanctions is to protect the encyclopedia from harm.. in closing, i will no longer post here and defer to the result of the process. StayFree76 ^talk 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stayfree76, of course you feel you have done nothing wrong. Absence of self-criticism is one of the problems. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We need a resolution. EEng 04:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  EEng, consdering !voting.—Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I !voted. Lev!vich 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support a very short topic ban, just to get this editor's attention. —valereee (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban from George Floyd and police issuse, broadly construed.--Jorm (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose but... Oppose total topic ban, suggest article space tban. It sound like an editor who is acting in good faith but doesn't get it yet. It also sounds like some people are saying their is some good contribution here. What about narrower article only tban. This would leave the editor free to make contributions to the talk pages and suggest/propose changes but they wouldn't be able to actually edit the article itself. It seems like there aren't talk page behavior issues so some sort of balance may help. Stayfree76, I can understand your frustration. For example, prior to Wirecard's crash, there were some smart people on Twitter who were making the case why the company was a fraud. They turned out to be right but RS policies say we don't use Twitter feeds as RSs no matter how smart the author or solid the evidence. Its just how Wikipedia is supposed to work. What should happen is "in the end" Wikipedia should be right but that often means that articles about current events may change significantly once we have some historical perspective. Springee (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Springee, the problem isn't their article edits. It's their talk page edits. They take up an inordinate amount of other editors' time at talk pages for George Floyd. We've tried to be patient, we've tried to explain that they should learn to edit on noncontentious articles, to no avail. —valereee (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case I wouldn't give my oppose too much weight. However, if the editor can't edit the article then the other editors can always just ignore Stayfree76's comments if they aren't adding value. So long as they aren't harming the article space or acting in an uncivil fashion I think we should try to keep the tbans limited in scope with the option to increase if problems continue. Springee (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Springee, I have to agree with val that it's the talk page edits and not mainspace edits that are the problem. But you are familiar with how it goes with newer editors at controversial articles (both good and bad) so if you care to review any part of the discussions at, e.g. Talk:Killing of George Floyd, Talk:George Floyd, or Talk:Derek Chauvin, your perspective would be welcome. Lev!vich 02:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is causing more heat than light. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

As outlined in Talk:Ivar Lovaas#New changes by User:ATC and Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness, 66.244.121.212 (his other IP address is 68.45.46.177) keeps reverting valid sources describing the history of literature reviews on Discrete trial training—the structured form of applied behavior analysis that is widely used for autistic children and is based on over 50 years of research—which follows WP:MEDRS guidelines. User:Sundayclose already asked him to remove the unnecessary picture of the drawing in the Aversion therapy article, which I had to remove as well, but he reverted it back (see here: User talk:66.244.121.212#August 2020). I think he needs to be blocked. ATC ^{. Talk} 01:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. Sundayclose (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Just fixed the sentence. ATC ^{. Talk} 16:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang

The OP has repeatedly shown contempt for the guidelines in his attempt to overstate the evidence in favor of discrete trial training by Ivar Lovaas. While a 2018 Cochrane review finds that evidence in favor of the technique is "weak" and at high risk of bias, the OP keeps insisting on representing the viewpoints of non-MEDRS sources, and on misrepresenting or failing to give due weight to the POV of Cochrane. The technique claims to produce normal functioning in about half of autistic children, and even to raise IQ (by 30 points!). You may be interested to know that one study found that promoters of this technique (like the OP) routinely ignore criticisms and refuse to acknowledge weaknesses in the evidence. So basicly, he's a fringe pusher.

I have tried to educate the OP about WP:MEDRS guidelines here, here, and here. I have warned him against willfully disobeying these guidelines here and here. When it became clear that things were not going well for the OP sourcing-wise, he attempted to recruite User:Doc James to his viewpoint. I politely warned him that this could be construed as an attempt at canvassing, and we went on to have a rather strange conversation in which the OP claimed that autism is caused by an "infused head growth". Doc James did not respond, and so he went on to contact User:Alexbrn^[1] (who has in the past expressed sympathy for these viewpoints), and User:Sundayclose, with whom I had recently had an unfortinite disagreement with on a related topic. This was a blatant attempt at canvassing. As you can see from my links, I said as much both users' talk pages, and neither user got involved. When this did not work, he asked Sundayclose to block me. Sundayclose declined the request (possibly because he is not an administrator), and so here we are.

I propose that the OP receive a sanction on behaviorism-related topics, as he is clearly not capable of neutrality on these issues, or of obeying guidelines in related discussions. As long as he is allowed to edit these articles, I fail to see how we can improve them. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I don't know what you were thinking when you edit warred to add that highly inappropriate image to Aversion therapy, but it was a mistake. El_C 03:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our dispute was about sourcing, not the appropriateness of the image. While that was not the best editing I have ever done, it did not violate WP:3RR. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct — 3RR was not violated, though WP:DE might have... El_C 03:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While you are free to add you voice to the discussion about whether or not the picture was inappropriate, as it was a well-sourced image drawn by a former resident of the Judge Rotenberg Center of an actual aversion therapy that is well-documented to have occurred there for many years. Regardless, that dispute is cold, unlike the one at present. --66.244.121.212 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as an uninvolved admin, I am telling you it is inappropriate. And how is it "cold" if you reverted the insertion of that image a mere few hours ago? El_C 04:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my incorrect statement. My dispute with Sundayclose was cold (as we both agreed that the image was properly sourced), but I had forgotten about the revert with the OP.

It is my opinion that this image is appropriate, as it provides an accurate visual description of a form of aversion therapy that was approved by the courts, cleared by the FDA, and used at the Judge Rotenberg Center for over 25 years before it was banned in 2020. It was drawn by a former resident of the center name Jennifer Msumba, and depicts her receiving shocks from the Graduated Electronic Decelerator while restrained to a four-point board. Jennifer has graciously agreed to led Wikipedia use this image. This punishment (multiple GED shocks while restrained to a four-point board) was inflicted on many residents, as is made clear by the linked articles. I know that this is a tough topic, but per WP:NOTCENSORED, the appropriateness of such an image should at least be up for discussion. You are free to add your voice to the debate, but please do not try unilaterally make the decision, as admins do not have that kind of power. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot. I thought we'd finally adopted painful electric shocks for use here at ANI, as I've long advocated. On a more serious point, the article tone and style is seriously off, with a huge RIGHTGREATWRONGS problem. EEng 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, if you're able to gain clear consensus for its inclusion, then that's one thing — but in the interim, yes, I do have that authority, per WP:DE. El_C 05:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Then I'll seek consensus on the talk page. And thank you for linking me that rule, which I was not previously aware of. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• New issue: After I posted this complaint, the OP began to whitewash discrete trial training and Ole Ivar Lovaas by downplaying their use of aversives. You may read the rather one-sided discussions of this whitewashing here and here. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that 66.244.121.212 is the IP who added over 2,000 bytes of copyrighted material to the article in question. This had to be removed by @Diannaa:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Diannaa: It's my impression that the IP is trying to WP:OWN the article, and run it as a PoV attack page against the institution. The article is extremely biased and should probably be reduced in size significantly, so it can be rebuilt in an NPoV way. I complained about this a while back, but no action was taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The POV-pushing and copyvio are reminiscent of problems we had last year[1] (see sock suspicions below). Alexbrn (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Beyond My Ken: You have reported that you think the article on the Judge Rotenberg Center is POV, but you have not raised the issue on the talk page. I would be very interested in having that discussion with you if you are still up for it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, no, I am not up for it. I have no energy to take on another badly slanted article. That doesn't mean that the article is any less of a hit job, as any fair-minded unbiased editor can easily see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then we’ll just have to disagree. I’m open to having this discussion with anyone who wants to have it. In my opinion, the center appears to be whole notable for the atrocities that occur there: In everything I ever read about it, I found nothing positive that was reliable. Some sources try to claim that they are supplying an effective medical treatment, but the FDA made clear that this is not true in the report where they banned the GED. Other claim that they rely mostly on positive support, using punishment only as a last resort. But this is also not true, as found In multiple state investigations. Basically, what is boils down to is this— the JRC claims that what they do is medical treatment, while its opponents claim it is torture. But the FDA has declared that what they do is not medical treatment and the representative of the United Nations has declared that it is torture— so how can we give any weight the the JRC’s side?

On a related note, you may want to check out the article on the JRC’s sister school, Tobinworld. Looks slanted, right? What if I told you that the only positive story I managed to dig up on the place from an independent source was about that one time when they served their students ice cream? I didn’t include it in the article, because it really didn’t seem notable enough. So in short, these articles "look POV", but there is no clear way to improve them, which is probably why none of the people her who argue that they are POV have managed to do so. If there’s a positive story I missed from a reliable independent source, someone please post it here and I’ll admit I was wrong. Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socking wrt Lovaas?

This controversial topic flared up last year here and at WP:FT/N, with a chief player being Wikiman2718 [2][3] who has not edited since, except once to insert one of these GED images.[4] I therefore suspect there is some kind of coordination/puppetry going on here. Perhaps an admin could dig a little? Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not socking to edit while logged out, as I never at any point managed my accounts abusively. Going to an IP to avoid harassment is a perfectly legitimate use of multiple accounts. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say "accounts" (plural). How many do you have? It is kind of problematic to edit while logged out when it has the effect of avoiding scrutiny. Here we have another batch of WP:DRAMA around these articles, with you as the epicentre, and without my spotting it, it would not have been apparent that the issue here is an editor with a known history of problematic editing in this topic space. How many different IPs are "you"? At least 4 or 5 obviously since they all geolocate to the same place, but this makes it impossible to have a coherent conversation on Talk. I am thinking a TBAN may be in order to damp down this kind of disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edit from whatever IP I'm to be at, of course. There is nothing at all suspicious about using several IPs. But as you were one of the two editors that I went to IP to avoid harassment from (and my currunt IP is rangeblocked), I might as well just log in now. You characterize my editing as problematic, but there was no consensus to that effect and I said the same of you. Now if we would just return to the discussion at hand, we could resolve the relevant content disputes so that it can finally determine who is POV pushing here. I see several accusations of POV, but dispite edits like this, none of my detractors seem to be able to write a better article than I have. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the previous ANI, after levelling charges of "harassment" at two editors (one of them me), and requesting time to make your case, you wrote "I promise that I will not make any further edits to the encyclopedia until this issue is resolved". But you've broken that promise and have returned to edit covertly using multiple IPs. Ironically, I would have been completely unaware of this thread had you not pinged me with the outright lie that I have "expressed sympathy" for the view that autism is caused by "infused head growths". Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) I did not mean to suggest that you had expressed sympathy for the point of view that autism is caused by and infused head growth. I suggested that you had expressed sympathy for the view that discrete trial training has more than weak evidence behind it. Is this not true? I pinged all editors that had been canvassed to, including you. 2) I have recently been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease (witch is exasperated by stress) and it was flaring up bad during that discussion. It is a very serious disease wich causes me a lot of pain, so I just decided to ghost rather than continue in that stressful situation. I had thought that I would give up editing, but about six months later when it was under control I decided to return as an IP. I made no effort to conceal my connection with this account, and never at any time pretended to be multiple users. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "expressed sympathy" for any of the viewpoints you mention, but I have surely offered my opinion on what is best supported by sources. That is part of what we are here for. As to how problematic your "ghosting" is, I will leave others to comment. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

Just in case anyone missed the last section, I am the IP that this thread was filed against (I am logged in now). At the heart of this issue is a content dispute on Ivar Lovaas and Discrete trial training. The content dispute may be found (and participated in) at Talk:Ole Ivar Lovaas#New changes by User:ATC, Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness, and Talk:Discrete trial training#Aversives. If you look at these pages you will see that the OP (User:ATC) refuses to adequately communicate, refuses to obey medical sourcing guidelines, and maintains his preferred versions of the articles through sheer force, reverting any attempt to reinstate neutrality. This diff shows one such revert, in which he refers to my edit as "vandalism". Rather than engaging in open discussion he has stonewalled, canvassed, and tried to get me banned. This behavior is extremely tendentious, and I fail to see how I can resolve this dispute without the need for outside intervention. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiman2718, Wikipedia has a strong immune system, without which we'd be drowning in nonsense. Occasionally, it over-corrects, particularly when dealing with logged-out editors, or new accounts who focus on righting great wrongs or promoting one point of view. You seem to me to be exactly the kind of editor we should nurture, so please be aware of the immune system. Don't do anything to make it suspicious. If in doubt, go to talk. Don't edit war or edit logged out without telling people it's you. If the talk page doesn't yield results, there are noticeboards where you can ask for help, e.g. WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN. Come here only as a last(ish) resort. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that advice. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ "User talk:Sundayclose". Wikipedia. 29 August 2020. Retrieved 29 August 2020.
2. ^ ""I Just Wanted to Die" — Kids with Autism Treated with Controversial Shock Therapy | AltHealthWorks.com". Retrieved 19 August 2020.

• New development: I have used another boomerang at SPI to argue that the OP used a sleeper account to report on me for socking. The present content dispute (and the OPs related behavior) is being used as evidence. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just found some really damning evidence that links the OP to the sleeper sock that reported me (viewable at the SPI link I just posted). I do have to wonder why this entire enormous thread was directed at me when the OP's editing was so obviously disruptive. Throughout this whole ordeal, not one person has bothered to investigate my claims, and as a result the OP has been allowed to harass me for a week. But I am not here to live in the past. The OP's disruption is still ongoing, so I would appreciate if an admin would take action fast. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now that the SPI has been closed with the finding that the accounts were unrelated,[5] it turns out the "week of harassment" has been perpetrated more by Wikiman2718, who has made a number of WP:PAs in prosecuting their case,[6] than by any other editor here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who didn't read the thread, the complaint was filed by as seven year old sleeper sock that activated five days ago (right in the middle of my dispute with ATC) who's username was a pun on ATC. ATC's block log contains multiple blocks for socking. Are you telling me that this is all a coincidence? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HOLES. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have also accused you of harassment (and will make that case when this is over) I would appreciate if you would let others weigh in. It look to me as though ATC has a special status in this community that puts him beyond scrutiny. As a result, he has been allowed to continue in his disruption unchecked. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get involved in this dispute, but something needs to be stated about this: If you look at these pages you will see that the OP (User:ATC) refuses to adequately communicate, refuses to obey medical sourcing guidelines, and maintains his preferred versions of the articles through sheer force, reverting any attempt to reinstate neutrality. I have been mentoring ATC for over a decade, and without saying more, I think you need to AGF a bit here. ATC's communication skills and editing ability have grown enormously over the years I have mentored them, and I am quite proud of them. They are not a bad faith editor, and they respond to reason. I have not investigated the rest of this matter, other than offering my views on the content on the article talk page. I went to their talk page to welcome Wikiman2718 as what I thought was a new account, when I realized this was at ANI, after I responded on article talk.[7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks from Wikiman2718

So I never meant to get involved in this, I am a mostly casual user that didn't really use this account to make a few edits (which were deleted a few years back). I filed the SPI because I saw that he didn't seem to be apologetic about not logging in, just from reading this thread. However, can Wikipedia somehow block personal attacks from User:Wikiman2718 against me? His mockery of me in several posts is creeping me out. He is even going after me on an unrelated thread User_talk:DGG#Significance_of_Media_Coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders

Atdevel (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are a personal attack. @Wikiman2718:, you need to either file an SPI or withdraw that accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: He won't stop making that claim, apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=prev&oldid=976397787

He just made it now. It's like that old joke, "George Washington and George Irving must be related" Atdevel (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Wikiman for these persistent accusations. If it continues, they need to be blocked by an admin. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: He did it again! He is asking me to verify IP addresses that I edited on from a while back, which makes me feel uncomfortable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atdevel&diff=prev&oldid=976422649 Atdevel (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: he is continuing with his attacks after being warned https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAtdevel&type=revision&diff=976431550&oldid=976422649 Atdevel (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just in case anyone missed the big event, ATdevel has retired. But given what just happened here, and this user's relevance to the still-open discussion, I still feel the need to justify my claims that this user was here for the purpose of disruption. I recently happened across some off-wiki evidence that is relevant and I'm not sure what the right procedure is here. Could a friendly admin help me out? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To an uninvolved admin: There have been some attempts in the past to label me as a person who makes false allegations. This is a problem for me, because it interferes with my ability to get help when I am being harassed. In the past this was less of a problem, but as noted above, the emergence of my autoimmune disease has lowered my tolerance for stress. I would therefore like the opportunity to submit some off-wiki evidence to a friendly admin who has the time. I want it known that I am no longer seeking sanctions: If I have any problems with ATC's edits, I will take them to SandyGeorge and I'm sure she'll work it out. It is very important to me that this claim be substantiated. We all know how common harassment is on this wiki, and if I am not able to get help when it occurs it will interfere with my ability to be a productive user. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikiman2718, that's now how it works; administators shouldn't, generally speaking, be trafficking in offwiki evidence. Who the right group to look at it depends on what kind of offwiki evidence there is. If it's about paid editing you can use paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org otherwise you can email a member of the CheckUser team. But you do need to substantiate the claims otherwise you can be blocked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the reply. The off-wiki evidence is entirely benign stuff that matches the profile the of account I believe to be a sock with the account I believe to be the master. I'll send off one of that email. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You've successfully hounded them off Wikipedia with unsubstantiated accusations of sock puppetry. Just stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1) With all due respect, this is exactly the response I was trying to avoid by substantiating my claim. You have not seen the evidence, and yet you have already dismissed me. I intend to file the report. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiman2718, I have (at least up to this point) practiced all the restraint I am capable of in the interest of extending to you (and indeed, I hope any editor who expresses they have health issues or neurological differences) the same patience I extended to ATC 13 years ago when they were a child editor, in the interest of fairness. I would ask you at this point to consider the path you are on and whether you want to continue on this path, as my patience is running out.

1. You sort of express above that you will not continue hounding ATC, yet you remain convinced (all evidence to the contrary) that ATdevel is ATC, so in fact, your continued claims are aimed not only at ATdevel-- an editor who has already left because of your hounding-- but indirectly at ATC as well. Checkuser demonstrated you were wrong, but you have continued with the claim across multiple pages, [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] even after a negative CU.
2. You have asked for the right to submit off-wiki evidence that they are the same person (even though Atdevel is now gone), while I have been silent about the numerous demonstrably false statements in your "evidence" claiming to link the two editors, nor have I yet supplied on- and off-Wiki evidence of just how wrong, indeed outlandish, your alleged "behavioral" "evidence" is. Things like conflating ATC with ACT, equating "devel" to "devil", presuming 13-year-old behaviors of a child editor have some relevance to today's behaviors, and assuming you know the gender of the accounts. Are you sure you want to press me to submit this kind of evidence and the rest of the story? If any admin or CU is entertaining evidence from you, then they need to hear from me as well. I don't recommend you take that route.
3. Let's look at the differences between your behavior now and the behavior thirteen years ago of a child editor (ATC) bumbling around on the internet when SarahSV and I were endlessly patient with them, but SV had to block them several times to get them to understand to use talk pages. I am fairly certain you are not a child editor-- at least I've seen no evidence that you are. ATC was a child editor whose edits were almost exclusively confined to her interest in a tic disorder-related boy band. That is, they edited The Tic Code (which, by the way, they subsequently brought to Good Article status), and the articles of the involved family, musician Michael Wolff (musician), his actor wife Polly Draper and their boys, in all of the The Naked Brothers Band-related articles. ATC's editing was nothing more malicious, disruptive or tendentious than a child's editing interests that required a lot of cleanup and explanation. In exchange, Wikipedia got (thirteen years later) a now-adult very patient, knowledgeable, willing to listen, experienced editor. The worst problems were getting a child to understand copyright. It is hard for me to imagine a better outcome than having an experienced adult editor thirteen years later who understands the full value and meaning for why AGF is a core policy.
   You, on the other hand, have rendered several article talk pages so WP:BATTLEGROUND that I prefer not to return to those pages (as discussed on my talk and at Talk:Discrete trial training, while ATC has not once lost their cool or personalized discussions). You have extended personal attacks on multiple pages, introduced POV and UNDUE content across quite a few autism-related articles.

Just as you won't or can't let go of the idea that ATC is ATdevel, you won't let go of the practices you allege from marginal sources from one outlet, and you are spreading UNDUE content to and autism advocacy to several articles. You have also gone after Alexbrn, an experienced medical editor. Yet you are concerned that you have an established reputation; do you see that changing that reputation is within your control and no one else's? That is, while ATC did nothing to damage Wikipedia or other editors (at most, they cost me a lot of time when they were a child editor), can I say the same about your contributions? Is this the path you want to continue on? I repeat the advice I have given you on my talk,[13] and many others have given you on your talk, which seems to be falling on deaf ears: WP:FOC. If you are not able to do that, I am coming to the concern (considering the advocacy editing you are introducing to autism-related articles), that you may need to be encouraged to disengage not only from mentioning ATdevel, Alexbrn, or ATC, but also from editing any autism topic, broadly construed. My years of mentoring ATC resulted in a now-adult productive and knowledgeable and collaborative editor: I'd like to see a similar positive result with you. Please take this to heart and don't disappoint me.

If any off-Wikipedia evidence is being submitted in the ATdevel/ATC matter, I expect to contribute. BradV provided a conclusive negative CU result, and the "behavioral" "evidence" is a series of bad-faith and extremely off allegations, and I too, have off-Wiki evidence that supports the errors in Wikiman2718's thinking, which should simply Cease and Desist, while they should comment on content not the contributor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SandyGeorgia: You have repeatedly stated that ATC was a "child editor". I am not asking you to share this information publicly, but do you happen to know the exact age of ATC? Because I did manage to determine the exact age to ATdevel. This could definitively absolve him any wrongdoing if the ages don't match up. If I am proven wrong, I will retract my claim and apologize. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know enough to know you're wrong, and to know that you have no right to continue to pursue this line of questioning. The way it works is that you retract your claims NOW, not after I show how wrong you are. And yes, I too have seen posts about ATdevel's age. You need to stop this now. CU *already* told you you were wrong; we are having a "beating a dead horse" problem here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SandyGeorgia: This produces an easy test that we can use to check the rightness/wrongness of my claim. We will both share this information with a checkuser, who can verify whether or not it matches up. As we all know, the checkuser tool is not perfect, and can be beaten by a technically sophisticated user. I have evidence that ATdevel is such a user based on their declared profession. I also have evidence of other rare demographic data that they share in common, so one way or another the result should be definitive. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin attention needed: ENOUGH

Is there an admin in town who can get this to stop? Wikiman2718, I have expended the better part of almost a week (at a time when I was EXTREMELY busy) on this. I do not need to be pinged to a discussion I am following. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a test which should definitively tell us who is right here. Why are you so against taking a look at the evidence? All I want is for the truth to come out. A checkuser that I contacted by email has expressed interest in evaluating my off-wiki evidence. I think that we should do that test. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiman, I've left a note on your talk page. Do not post about this again on Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Doug Weller, RolandR, Larry Hockett, Richard3120, and Esowteric:

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

New user off to a bad start of ignoring repeated warnings on the same set of issues. A brief block may be needed to emphasize that the warnings mean something.

These ([14],[15],[16],[17],[18]) are some of the edits that have prompted user talk messages and warnings. Click "Next edit" on any to see the reverter's summary, or just look on User talk:Zackomode. Essentially, the pattern is one of blindly replacing certain words and phrases with the user's preferred word or phrase, even when this breaks grammar, breaks wikilinks, introduces inaccuracy, or changes a direct quote. The user's editing frequency seems to be increasing, so this strikes me as a good time to make an impression, and hopefully save a lot of later cleanup effort. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 16:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly warned this user, over behaviour such as needlessly changing from British to American English,[19][20][21] unnecessary fiddly edits,[22][23][24][25] and particularly changing direct quotations to match their own preferred usage.[26][27][28][29][30]. They have even edited my comments on their talk page.[31] I have left them a personal message explaining the problem with their edits,[32] as well as several templated warnings. But this does not seem to have made any impression, and the editor continues regardless with their disruptive, unhelpful and frequently outright erroneous edits. I think that the editor needs a short block as a warning, with a warning that continuing in this way could lead to the permanent withdrawal of their editing privileges. RolandR (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swpb's final example above, the J.K. Rowling edit, is a good example of the two biggest problems with this user's edits. I can live with the addition of serial/Oxford commas all over the place, even if their addition is unnecessary and breaks the flow of the prose in places. But direct quotations should never be changed, even if the spelling or grammar was incorrect in the first place. And more troubling is the changing of words which then make no sense in the context of the sentence – in the J.K. Rowling article it's the change of the noun "a wait" to the verb "await". There's another example here where in the "Critical reception" section "with in" was changed to "within" which makes no grammatical sense in the context. I don't know whether the user just has poor grammar (in which case WP:CIR applies), or if they are running the article through an automatic spelling/grammar checker and making the corrections suggested by the program... if so, this is exactly why the use of machine translators to translate articles from other languages is discouraged on Wikipedia, because computer programs are not infallible. Richard3120 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the above. I do think there can be legitimate fixes applied to direct quotes (per MOS:PMC) to correct errors, but rather than correcting errors in such quotes, this user is simply swapping out words to match his own preferences.

This edit concerns me. To me, it defies logic to hold out a preference for American English over Australian English on an article titled Culture of Australia - especially after having received a user talk page warning related to national varieties of English a week earlier. Because Zackomode doesn't use talk pages and rarely uses edit summaries, we are left without an understanding of how to best help him with these issues. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Maybe a short-term block would be appropriate, so that the user's attention is drawn to the issue. Then, if they choose to appeal, that may provide an opening for constructive dialogue? Esowteric+Talk 15:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the user has fallen silent (made no edits) since the last warning on Monday 31 August 2020. Esowteric+Talk 20:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Za-ari-masen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Za-ari-masen (talk · contribs) is removing citations [33] and cited texts [34]. A number of editors have tried to WP:GF to engage with him on various POV pushing where he is in the minority of one, but he seems impervious to all arguments. Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system He will reject sources on one pretext or the other if they do not align with his POV. [35]. This behavior has been persistent. Chaipau (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chaipau and the other user (Msasag) are simply misrepresenting the sources at multiple articles in what seems to be an ethnic POV pushing. The case here is Rangpuri language and Bengali-Assamese languages. The most widely used source for linguistic articles on Wikipedia, Ethnologue, lists "Bengali script" as the writing system for Rangpuri language[36]. But Chaipau is rejecting the source and replacing it with citations from sources that don't even support his edit to include Assamese alphabet or Bengali-Assamese script in what seems to be a source misrepresentation. Instead of discussing and addressing the issue, Chaipau and Msasag has resorted to edit-warring. The predisputed version at both articles had Bengal as the writing system for Rangpuri language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have tried many ways to break this stonewalling by Za-ari-masen, to no avail. The biggest hindrance is this editor's behavior. We took the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_Ethnologue_reliable_for_the_Kamta_group_of_languages?. It was pointed out there that Ethnologue was a WP:TERTIARY source and Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY [37], but Za-ari-masen continued to not hear and renewed his tirades in Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script#Article_title (after slapping a tag on the article [38]). It was pointed out to him that he has been pushing his POV persistently since February 2019 [39]. He would move the page unilaterally without any discussion [40], [41], [42] (all of which had to be reverted. Eg. [43]) His behavior has been persistently disruptive on a long term basis, and he has been a hindrance to WP:CONSENSUS. Chaipau (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this thread (Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system) Za-ari-masen is arguing with each and every other editors commenting there, which includes me, u:Austronesier, u:Msasag, u:Mohsin274, etc. Even after he "solicited" help from others [44], he ignored their advice when they went against him [45], [46], and continued with his POV pushing. Za-ari-masen is extremely disruptive, and in this case continued to stonewall even as there was a clear consensus among the rest of the editors. Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why you are showing diffs of selective comments. On Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics, Uanfala commented that the Toulmen source that you were citing is already referenced in the Ethnologue survey for the language. So that makes Ethnologue a superior source in my opinion. In another section of the same talk page, LiliCharlie [commented ""It"? No. Unicode calls the script "Bengali script"]". Even on Rangpuri Language, Fylindfotberserk commented "As for this matter, one can ref the unicode source if it is newer and necessary." Overall, the neutral editors didn't take any sides as to what the script should be called. In fact, the diff of the comment by UserNumer you showed actually supported my position as he commented "Rangpuri is the term used by ethnic Bengalis of Bangladesh (and possibly a few West Bengalis). This specific tongue is written with the Bengali script". Yet, I agreed to keep both the scripts in the infobox as a compromise but even that was reverted by Msasag, who has simply been aimlessly edit-warring. The moves on Bengali-Assamese script were made 18 months back and I already accepted my mistake and refrained from moving the article. Even there, several editors have had corroborated my argument, [47], [48]. I'm at least allowed to discuss my points on talk pages, this is not WP:DE. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Za-ari-masen is making conflicting and misleading edits. I have noticed he changed the writing system of some Languages from "Bengali-Assamese script" to "Bengali script". In the talk pages, Msasag and Chaipau have provided many references to make him understand why it should be "Bengali-Assamese script" and not "Bengali script". But, he rejected all the points and is not ready to agree. We didn't reach any conclusion yet, but he is continuously making changes. And when Msasag reverted his repetitive edits, he reported the user for edit warring. He also proposed to rename "Bengali-Assamese script" to "Bengali script". By doing this, he will recreate an issue that was solved long ago after a year long discussion. Mohsin274 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break: Additional behavioral issues from India-Bangladesh topics

• Za-ari-masen is regularly engaging in disruptive editing on Bangladesh Liberation War by removing peoples' comments,[49] starting RfC and then withdrawing after it went against his POV,[50] casting WP:ASPERSIONS by calling editors a "nationalist"[51], engaging in very selective WP:CANVASSING,[52] wikilawyering,[53] and more. A sanction for such WP:CIR issues is definitely warranted. Orientls (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd request the admins to look at the diffs carefully because Orientls is clearly misrepresenting the diffs. The comment I removed from Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War was a blatant WP:NPA which was already stated by User:Nomian at the discussion[54] and after being restored by another editor, the comment was eventually redacted by an admin. I withdrew the RfC because according to WP:RFCCLOSE, the nom can withdraw the RfC. There was a solution proposed and approved by uninvolved editors so I thought there was no need for an RfC anymore. Before withdrawing, I also left a comment expressing my desire to withdraw, nobody objected and User:Aditya Kabir even supported it[55]. The comment being described as WP:ASPERSION was "I think nationalist sentiments have been exhibited from both sides...", I don't how it's aspersion. Regarding WP:CANVASSING, the diff itself shows that I didn't even notify any editor as I used "noping" to write the usernames of different editors in my comment. This false allegations are nothing new by Orientls as he has been doing this for everyone who opposes his POV, even User:Aditya Kabir and User:Kmzayeem have been subjected to such false allegations by Orientls multiple times at the talk page. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But how any diffs were misrepresented? Just because you don't see any disruption in your editing, doesn't mean you are not being disruptive. I see you are still selectively WP:CANVASSING the editors so that they can come and defend you but note that you are alone responsible for your edits. These 2 diffs[56][57] are not similar to each other. "I withdrew the RfC because according to WP:RFCCLOSE, the nom can withdraw the RfC" but WP:RFCCLOSE's 5 points contradict every single reasoning of yours. Seeing your response here, it is clear that this is exactly what you do when you are discussing articles or interacting with other editors i.e. exhibit your own issues with poor comprehension skills. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"But how any diffs were misrepresented?" From what I can see, not all diffs match Orientis' description of them. Za-ari-masen removed an anonymous editor's comments about the inferiority of Bangladesh's military in comparison to Pakistan, and the same editor's comment that the ones who disagree are Bangladeshi nationalists. The comment was not particularly constructive. The "aspersions" diff acknowledged nationalist sentiments on both sides of an argument, without accusing any specific user. The "canvassing" diff demonstrates that no users were pinged, so not a real case of canvassing. Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean from "an anonymous editor's comments"? See WP:IPHUMAN. The messages clearly didn't warrant blanket removal, and removing the comment was nothing more than an attempt reduce opposition. Making conduct based allegations without citing diffs is casting aspersions and just making acknowledgement of "nationalist sentiments on both sides of an argument" without providing any evidence does not make it any less of "aspersion" as long as it is not backed with the evidence. Orientls (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the stories and backgrounds here, but the one I know seem to be somewhat mispresented by the diffs and the commentary provided by Orientls. Za-ari definitely has discussed the closure of the RfC before he closed it (he also stated his reason), he was within his rights to do so (though it was probably not the right course of action, given the combustible nature of the discussion), and when reverted, he didn't go into war.

He closed the RfC because he explicitly agreed to the status quo achieved, not because it went against him. Rather the current status quo went against what Orientls wanted and he is the one who reverted the RfC closure (I am not trying to incriminate him, just pointing out the irony). As for the "nationalist POV" bit, I believe that particular word was used over a dozen times by at least half a dozen editors, including Orientls and I.

As anyone reading this would have noticed, I have provided no diffs here (I don't want to waste my energy on digging dirt for nothing). But that doesn't mean I can't. Anyone can ask for the diffs if needed, and I shall provide them as promptly I can.

Thank you. Y Tea anyone? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The close was completely inappropriate and having "discussed the closure of the RfC" is not gonna fly especially when Za-ari-masem is deliberately misrepresenting WP:RFCCLOSE. I am not the "one who reverted the RfC closure", and not a single time I have used the word "nationalist". You should better try citing diffs for your claims and you are not going to put up a strong defense for Za-ari-masen if you continue making these invalid claims. Orientls (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. You didn't right "nationalist POV", you wrote just "POV" (I checked back). And you didn't revert the closure. Srijanx22 did, another editor from the team bludgeoning that talk, did. If I remember correctly the status quo really went against all of your opinions (not Za-ari's). Good that you have most everyone of that team here, including him. Anyways, my interest here is not Za-ari or Rangpuri language. So I think you can continue this without my participation. You guys have already managed a 48 hours block against me, and I don't think I have enough lawyering in me to fight with this kind of games. Y I go back to my cup of tea. Have nice day all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Self-trout Not nice. Reducted. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Za-ari-masen

Za-ari-masen has been blocked 2 times this year over a subject that is intersection between India and Bangladesh. There has been already one ANI thread against Za-ari-masen earlier this year.[58] Two days ago, Za-ari-masen went ahead to report an editor on WP:ANEW[59] while himself violating WP:3RR by making 6 reverts in just 7 hours 1 day.[60][61][62][63][64][65] The above response which reads nothing more than WP:GASLIGHTING given the misrepresentation of WP:RFCCLOSE alone, I do think that Za-ari-masen lacks the necessary competence to edit in this area and should be topic banned from anything related to India and Bangladesh for an indefinite period.

• Support as proposer. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The continued double downing, failure to understand any policies and the recent edit warring against multiple editors is enough to justify this sanction. Orientls (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A topic ban based on two incidents, a mention of past blocks (dude, many of our admins have one or two blocks under their belts, and I have one too, WP is not about being judgemental), an essay and an untruth about an RfC closure (see above discussion)... can that really be a case for topic ban? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above. [reply]

• Oppose A clear case of editor targeting. Orientls and Abhishek0831996 are part of the group of users who had been edit-warring and stonewalling Bangladesh Liberation War. Za-ar-masen's RfC at the talk page of Bangladesh Liberation War brought attention of the wider community to stop the stonewalling and this led them to target the editor here. Orientls has clearly falsified the diffs which had been explained by Dimadick above. Even Abhishek0831996 has used the same tactic by falsely claiming "6 reverts in just 7 hours" when the diffs actually extend across 31 hours and all of the diffs don't seem to be reverts. I think an action is due against Orientls and Abhishek0831996 for using ANI as a forum for personal vendetta against an editor, that too by falsifying diffs. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kmzayeem (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above. [reply]

• I don't see a single diff being falsified, and given you don't even understand what is a WP:REVERT since all of those cited edits indeed "seem to be reverts", I can't expect anything from you. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems both Abhishek0831996 and Orientls have started to bludgeon, [66], [67], like they did at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As the reporter, I shall not take a position here; but in this thread (Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system) Za-ari-masen is arguing with each and every other editors commenting there, which includes me, u:Austronesier, u:Msasag, u:Mohsin274, etc. Even after he "solicited" help from others [68], he ignored their advice when they went against him [69], [70], and continued with his POV pushing. Za-ari-masen is extremely disruptive, and in this case continued to stonewall even as there was a clear consensus among the rest of the editors. Chaipau (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — moving this comment to the top of the section in context. Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Misrepresentation of source on Bengali–Assamese languages[71] is concerning because the quote verifies the information of the source by noting "as used in Assamese script". But this user makes 3 reverts [72][73][74] without any participation on talk page just to remove the term by falsely claiming that it is not in the source. This clearly shows that we are better off without having this user create problems in this whole subject. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Abhishek0831996 and Orientls I was waiting for Srijanx22 to join in. This is the same group of editors that has been hounding Za-ari and bludgeoning the Liberation War article, has fought him in other ANIs and came after me when I supported him. This pretty much looks like a pattern of behaviour with this particular group of editors. But, seriously guys, are you going to use every revert Za-ari ever made against him? Well... your choice. Maybe you guys will win. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Self-trout Not nice. Reducted. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: When Za-ari-masen was warned about edit warring in the jhalmuri and mutton curry articles, he called Kingarthur581 a "troll."[75] Also, when his behavior was pointed out, he "did not hear that".[76] --1990'sguy (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with what have been said above that this seems to be a spillover of the animosity shown at Bangladesh liberation war dispute. Folks, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to fight wars as representatives of different countries. Ganging up on a person if you disagree with them is uncalled for. W.r.t the original report, I don't see any formal dispute resolution effort at the language articles, perhaps, adopting one of the DR venues is the best approach to sort out a disagreement. WP:ANI only creates animosity and should be used as the last resort. Nomian (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nomian (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above. [reply]

Nomian Thank you for your suggestion on taking this through the DR process, but we have tried many ways to break this stonewalling by a single editor, to no avail. The biggest hindrance is this editor's behavior. We took the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_Ethnologue_reliable_for_the_Kamta_group_of_languages?. It was pointed out there that Ethnologue was a WP:TERTIARY source and Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY [77], but Za-ari-masen continued to not hear and renewed his tirades in Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script#Article_title (after slapping a tag on the article [78]). It was pointed out to him that he has been pushing his POV persistently since February 2019 [79]. He would move the page unilaterally without any discussion [80], [81], [82] (all of which had to be reverted. Eg. [83]) His behavior has been persistently disruptive on a long term basis, and he has been a hindrance to WP:CONSENSUS. Chaipau (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC) - moving this comment to a reply to Za-ari-masen instead.[reply]

• Comment Hi, I stumbled in this discussion through the notification for mentioning me here, I am not here to judge anyone or take any party's side. I do agree that I had disagreement and argument with Za-ari-masen previously but he is also very friendly toward me and helped me create the article shukto and I think except some disagreement in past, he is a very nice person. But I am also opposing the term Ganging up on a person used by Nomian, Accusing the supporters of topic ban as some "Indian Wikipedians who are trying to gang up on a Bangladeshi Wikipedian and block him just for personal disagreement without any reason" is a very serious accusation when the discussion going on here with each party providing their proofs and reasons and where the general consensus is being taken up without disrespecting any opposition party's opinion. I hope Za-ari-masen will evade this process and won't engage in further NPOV dispute with other editors as accused. Kingarthur581 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to disrespect anyone here and I didn't say it's an Indian vs Bangladeshi scene. My only intention was to accurately describe the situation. I apologize brother if my comment sent a wrong message which was not intended. Nomian (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I DID NOT HEAR THAT is best way to describe the attitude Za-ari-masen pursues. He has been blocked multiple times for similar set of misconducts earlier as well. Most of his edits which caused him to be reported here, are focused on unsourced PoV tweaks, not about substantial changes in article but rather like changing country of origin being Bangladesh for cuisines/languages/scripts (regularly involves in it and causes disputes) or Bangladeshi victory on liberation war etc..[84][85] He misrepresents sources, rejects or ignores elaborations by other editors, even pushes news articles from barely used sources as "established reliable sources" [86] for whom, not even an RfC ever occurred, (that even without interpreting the context within those sources). He has been pushing for a result unsupported by sources on Bangladesh Liberation War, and always starts to accuse other editors of not assuming good faith towards him, bullying him or gaming the system. But has never cared to failed to provide any sources. He holds serious competence issues and displays gross failures to understand Wikipedia policies about WP:VAND/WP:EW/WP:CANVASSING.[87][88] It is not like that anyone has not tried to help him understanding how system works. [89][90][91][92], he ignores that and instead flamebaits is his own misconduct. It is not entirely true that his misconducts are only because his lack of understanding of sources and wikipedia. But rather his WP:ILIKEIT preferences motivate him to derail underway dispute resolutions. For instance, closure of this ongoing RfC without concensus towards his side, in fact, not even any substantial leaning to his preferred version, yet has an approved version (by which editors?) as a result [93] and in fact had been dragging his entire case in this RfC solely on emotions of editors on his side than any single reliable source. There are plenty more issues he has created and has become a problem for lot of good editors. He clearly is a disruptor than a contributor and should be topic banned until he realises and acknowledges for what he has been reported. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a lot going there — repeating "source" 10 times, discussing an RfC closure (which is still within Za-ari's rights, though the unnecessary revert of the RfC is probably within the right of the reverting editor as well), repeating other editors, and contradictory agrument like he doesn't understand policy and he ignores policy (which, obviously, are not the same)... is there anything in this long and somewhat repeatative post that addresses Chaipau's complaint? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shared my experiences, but don't forget multiple articles have been mentioned above where Za-ari-masen has aggressively edit warred. For policies, he indeed didn't understand it much. And kept mum on his own misconducts (and misconducts from the editors he favoured as well) to little part he was citing repeatedly. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Quite frankly, I do have to agree with the other Oppose !votes. A lot of this has came from assuming bad faith. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would again urge the admins to carefully verify whether the descriptions of the diffs match or not. The source mentioned by Srijanx22 states on page 52, The Rajbanshis are making an effort to rediscover their own script by resurrecting the scripts of the texts written mostly during the 15th century which means the Rajbanshis are not using Assamese alphabet but are trying to create their own separate script which is why I removed Assamese alphabet. The claim of 1990'sguy is false because I didn't call the editor a troll rather described the inappropriate notice on my talkpage as "troll notice" in an edit summary. Aman.kumar.goel has just restated the same false allegation that he has been making against me for a number of times. All my edits are sourced, on Bangladesh Liberation War, I provided quotation from a book published by University Press Limited to back my argument. The news article mentioned by Aman is actually a source from The Daily Star (Bangladesh) which was used in an unsourced stub article, so essentially he was arguing to revert back to the unsourced version of the article without even providing any contradictory source. In both cases, he has tried to reject the sources just because they didn't match his POV. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The above comment by Za-ari-masen is really a case of WP:CIR. Searching for a script does not mean finding it. And then finding that the Rajbangsi script was identical to the Assamese script does not mean that the Assamese script is the Bengali script. I am amazed at these mind-bending inferences. I have noticed no substantive contribution from this editor in any of the articles I have seen so far except POV pushing; nor have I seen any help from him for the community to come to WP:CONSENSUS except never-ending conflict on nationalism issues. I have no choice but to support a topic ban, if not an indefinite ban. This editor displays WP:CIR issues and helps Wikipedia in nothing. Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: I believe you just killed your case with your last few posts, here and elsewhere. WP:CIR, though unusual, can be a reason for blocks and bans. I requested you to let go and not fight, and you didn't listen. Now you are here.

Even if you get out of this unsinged, please, learn to listen. Wikipedia is written by a community, not individual authors. Not listening in a community is a big problem indeed. Chaipau and Aman.kumar.goel has also complained about this tendency of not listening.

How do you remain compliant to a community if you don't listen to it? Not good, brother. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have informed the user earlier that their edits are “anachronistic and problematic.”[94] I said to the user: Surely, you know that the Bengal region is shared between Bangladesh and India so don't you think the previous revisions characterizing these as being "Bengali" or from the "Bengal region" of South Asia are better? I agree with the other users here, clear WP:IDNHT and WP:CIR. Also, I find these examples to be more of the same problematic behavior.[95] [96] Even those who earlier supported them here, have now stated the following: How do you remain compliant to a community if you don't listen to it?.Eliko007 (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support When there is no doubt about apparent WP:CIR then there should be no doubt towards this proposed sanction. Lorstaking 13:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, because there's plenty of evidence here of people supporting sanctions to clear the decks of opposition. If there's evidence of problematic editing, it's much better handled at AE, where uninvolved administrators can decide whether this is just a content dispute or if there are genuine policy violations occurring. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh isn't covered by any Arbcom sanctions. Hence this issue cannot be handled on AE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• support 6-month topic ban. Aman Kumar Goel's diffs show a pattern of misconduct, but this thread also shows evidence of misconduct by others and disagreement over the severity of Za-ari-masen's poor behavior. Based on what I've seen, I feel Abhishek0831996 has a stronger case, but a possible consensus from this thread would be a temporary topic ban. Worldlywise (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, mainly on the evidence provided by Abhishek0831996. Supposed or imagined behavior of others doesn't justify your own problematic editing and lack of remorse. Zakaria1978 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Is it me or does no one else see the misleading exaggeration in Abhishek0831996's report?

The six reverts which they initially claim to have been made within 7 hour and then amended to one day have been done within a span period of 2 days without violating 3RR. Still not the best of conduct and certainly an edit war over a content dispute. However, there is not a single warning on their talk page during or after this period, and this was brought straight to ANI by someone who themselves are a part of the content dispute during an ongoing discussion whereas this should have been the last resort.

The accusation of gaslighting also seems to be unwarranted and rather inflammatory especially from someone who is also accusing them of a lack of competence. WP:RFCCLOSE isn't a policy but a summarisation of general practice which does state that participants do at times close them. They should probably have not have made the close themselves considering how contentious the topic appears but I can see a conscious attempt to implement a compromise solution rather than forwarding their POV. (See the talk page revision)

I should probably mention that this is likely the extension of antagonism in two reports on Arbitration Enforcement between more or less the same group of editors (see the first two reports on Archive 270). To me this appears like a very blatant attempt "to clear the decks of opposition" as Vanamonde has already stated, and likely needs a much deeper inspection into the conducts of multiple editors here (which also should include Zia-ari-masem's but not in this manner). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don't know what 3RR means because WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.... Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions." Doing 6 reverts in 32 hours isn't the right thing to do. You are wrong about other things too since Za-ari-masen has warnings and messages on his talk page, he does not deserve more warnings. Diffs show that he has been notified of his actions on his own talk page as well as elsewhere, on talk page & on other users' where he jumped to flamebait. His misinterpretation of policies from his comments clearly justifies allegations of gaslighting. Your false equivalence amounts to WP:ASPERSIONS and you should refrain from doing this type of misrepresentation since Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've appropriately called their behavior to be an edit war as they by-passed the 3 revert rule by making a fourth revert a few hours after the passage of 24 hours from their third revert. Whereas your report above gives an impression that they blatantly disregarded the rule by doing 6 reverts within 24 hours which isn't the case. You have otherwise failed to demonstrate what policies they have "misrepresentated" and how it qualifies as "gaslighting," accusations especially of this kind need to be substantiated and your representation of those diffs does not work in your favor.

Moreover, I have not compared anyone to anyone here so I don't know what false equivalence you are talking about. If you think an uninvolved editor questioning your report is the same as casting aspersions and indulging in battleground behavior then that at the least is a failure on your part to assume good faith. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"More or less the same group of editors"... maybe that is what lies at the base of almost all the disputes, and certainly all the conflicts. Also the amount of false allegations, misquotes, cherrypicking etc. is somewhat unsettling. Can this also be a type of WP:POLSHOP? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tayi Arajakte: You were saying above "without violating 3RR", and now you are changing your words after you were given the correct definition of WP:3RR. Similarly you falsely claimed "same group of editors" who participated in unrelated reports have entered here, when most of the editors here have nothing to do with those reports. Reliable sources, WP:RFCCLOSE, etc. have been blatantly misrepresented by Za-ari-masen and to continue refusing to agree with the actual interpretation of the sources or the policies is indeed gaslighting. With so many faulty interpretations of policies from you in offering a dubious defense for the reported editor is misleading, but it is also appalling that you are ready to point out "assume good faith" contrary to WP:DLTAGF even after falsely accusing others of "blatant attempt "to clear the decks of opposition"". This type of conduct speaks mainly about your own problematic approach. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to differentiate between violation of 3RR and any edit warring isn't me changing my words, more importantly you have yet to address the obvious exaggeration in your presentation. Secondly, I don't see them even mentioning reliable sources here and don't find the defense of their RfC closure to be "gaslighting."

There is also amply evidence to the effect that this is indeed an attempt "to clear the decks of opposition" which is something pointed out not just by me. For instance, every single editor (with the exception of the sysops) who were either mentioned or commented on the two AE reports are all involved in this report.

Whereas I have yet to see anything other than unsubstantiated inflammatory accusations from you till now which itself is disruptive conduct not suited for collegial discussions on Wikipedia. Since you are now accusing me of "many faulty interpretations of policies from you in offering a dubious defense for the reported editor," I would like you substantiate that as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What everyone can see is that you are alone with your misrepresentation of WP:3RR and your misleading definition that "the 3 revert rule by making a fourth revert a few hours after the passage of 24 hours" is not a 3RR violation - is not supported by any guideline or policy.

If this is not a misrepresentation of source then what it is? I am yet to see your rather a fairytale "amply evidence" given there is no policy which says that you are not allowed to report an editor for WP:DE just because you editing the same topic as him.

At this stage, you are only trying to have the last word and I don't think I will be interested in entertaining this WP:IDHT of yours any further. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come here to start a long dispute but if you continue to throw inflammatory accusations at me then I would have to respond now, wouldn't I? Your conduct till now in response to my comment has only strengthened my opinion on the oppose !vote.

For example take a look at the policy on edit warring and how it defines 3RR and Edit Warring.

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring.

Your report makes it seem like they blatantly crossed that "bright line" with 6 reverts. I pointing out that they did not in fact violate 3RR, i.e cross the "bright line" which is prohibited with emphasis but considered that they did indulge in edit warring by by-passing it (gaming the system). In response you could have easily corrected it but instead resorted to accusing me of misrepresentation of 3RR and pretending as if there's no difference.

In fact, in response to my comment you've accused me of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, contradicting WP:DLTAGF (an essay) because I linked assume good faith, of falsely accusing others and as of latest WP:IDHT while ignoring or similarly denying all the original points I made. In light of this, how am I to support your unsubstantiated accusations against them on something like WP:GASLIGHTING?

Regarding the one "misrepresentation" of theirs that you've bothered to link for the first time, it can be reasonably argued that usage of a letter from a script isn't equivalent to adoption of the script. Something which I assume you'd be able see if you made an effort to see their side of the debate, curiously enough you're the one accusing me of WP:IDHT. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the diffs provided for edit warring on multiple pages and misrepresentation of sourses. It seems that the user has language problems (difficulty in understanding others) in addition to the lack of collaborative conduct. The indefinite topic ban should give them enough opportunity to remedy their behaviour. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern is regarding an issue (singular) with Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). I'll be short. What the fuck is this [97]? Isn't this as egregious as someone putting a picture of a certain person who says bigly, beside an article titled Mental disorder? I don't go around digging someone's edit history. But I am confident that despite being aware of BLP policies, he made a troll page to provoke others. I have zero intentions of ever communicating with him in the future but I want to ask him here. What's your obsession with Greta (who was then 16)? His version was removed here and here (by User:ජපස and User:Bradv respectively), which means it stayed in public and indexed for more than a year perhaps. - hako9 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't go around digging someone's edit history." - but you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? The picture seems fine in the context of that one-line stub. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? What? The article has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety. - hako9 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's not obvious from the diff you provided. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target:
  • [98]- accuses User:Ajf773 of racism
  • [99]- more accusations of racism, this one leveled at @Piotrus:
  • [100]- accuses User:Soetermans of shilling for Fandom, Inc.
  • [101]- Further accusations of racism
• Good luck getting AfD closers to acknowledge these personal attacks, but maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI. Reyk _YO! 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article in question is currently at AfD, where I have explained some history of the article. It was initially based on this BBC article, which highlighted Greta Thunberg in this context, including the cited quotation of hers. I read that BBC article at the time, noticed that we didn't have a corresponding article and so got one started. Lots of other editors have expanded the article since and I've mostly left them to it. This just seems to be ordinary editing per WP:BOLD. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you, for instance, put a picture of Sushant Singh Rajput in an article titled depression, with his quotes (out of context), in the caption. The BBC article doesn't put her picture as the top display. Is this not completely un-encyclopedic? Isn't this enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate this article with her personal life and her mental health, all in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks a lot, for leaving this articles to others. The harm you caused would maybe be more difficult to fix than creating an article from scratch. - hako9 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(after several edit conflicts) No, "his version" was not removed in those edits. He neither created the caption removed by User:ජපස nor the text removed by User:Bradv. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Phil Bridger: for pointing it out to me though, that those weren't "his versions". Striked that word. - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The OP is now claiming that I have an "obsession with Greta" and adds some innuendo about her age. But the OP fails to provide evidence of such an obsession. So far as I recall, I have never edited the article about her and it wasn't on my watchlist when I looked at it just now. I don't think I've even read the article before as it was interesting to discover that her second name is Tintin, which I was not previously aware of.

What I have done previously is create some other articles about environmental topics including beach cleaning; back to nature; ammonia pollution; decline in insect populations; plogging; Boyan Slat; sharawadgi. I have also created hundreds of articles on a variety of other topics as I'm not especially obsessed by any particular topic. One such other article was give a dog a bad name and hang him. I don't recall exactly, but suppose that was inspired by some similar proceeding here at ANI. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it interesting for you to discover her second name is Tintin? - hako9 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of articles about ecoanxiety mention Greta. She represents worrying about the environment rather well. I don't see this is an insult. Why call it a "mental disorder" when people are worried about the environment? Dream Focus 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this version (before today's nomination)- [102]. Quoting from the article's lead Swedish teenager, Greta Thunberg, is a high-profile example of youth who have been affected and has been pivotal in making climate anxiety more visible around the world. At the age of 11, she became seriously depressed because of her worries about global warming, although her anxiety exacerbated her pre-existing mental health problems. Here is the source (paints a completely different picture imv)The Guardian. Do you find anything wrong? If not then ask yourself, what is this article about. Is it about psychological emotion or about a girl and her personal life. If a line on this and her past was included in her own article, that would've been fine. This isn't. - hako9 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't in the original article he created. Her article has a section for her mental health issues including depression. Greta_Thunberg#Mental_health Dream Focus 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, It wasn't. But I'll repeat, his creation of the article was done with a purpose of enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate the article with her personal life and her mental health, in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds rather ridiculous. Why would you believe someone would create an article for that devious purpose? How exactly would that even work? You honestly believe he somehow knew others would come and add in more information that you find offensive, despite it being listed in her own article? Dream Focus 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section on her page distinguishes completely, her past and the issues she overcame, in contrast to her activism later in life. The article portrays that the psychological response in teens is unsubstantiated by way of making her the poster child of people who had issues earlier in life, and who are known for that mere reason. - hako9 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not seeing an ANI-level issue here. Would need much more evidence to make the case for a tban or some other sort of action. I don't agree with Andrew's editorial decision in that article, but don't think it rises to the level of a behavioral problem. BD2412 suggested a very sensible approach to handling the article(s), and as Reyk's comments show, the longer this stays open the more likely it is to drift into other issues. If something's going to happen with Andrew (or ARS, since that's relevant to this AfD) it's probably not going to happen in the context of this thread. $0.02 — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI- every time I allow myself the least bit of optimism I end up disappointed. Why do I bother? Reyk _YO! 18:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like I stand corrected. Usually bringing up unrelated issues with regard to the subject of an ANI report, when the initial report doesn't have much meat to it, doesn't go anywhere (and IMO weakens those same arguments for when they are relevant down the road), but it looks like perhaps enough is enough [for a warning]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Although the diffs provided by Reyk are much much more serious, can someone please comment on whether an article creation like this is ohk? Am I losing my shit over a paltry issue or does my concern have maybe, an iota of validity? - hako9 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Rhododendrites, I understand what you're saying and I guess my passive agressive complaining just now wasn't a good idea. But sometimes you just can't satisfy everyone. If I protest at the AfDs, closers ignore it. If I start an ANI myself people will accuse me of just having an axe to grind. If I attach my concerns to another ANI regarding insinuations against people who don't deserve it that's too off-topic. If I wait for a more AfD-centric discussion I'll get dismissed because the alleged misbehaviour was too long ago. Reyk _YO! 20:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrew Davidson: if you post more bad faith, passive-aggressive speculation about the motives of editors, I will block you for violations of WP:CIVIL. Insinuating that someone is racist or shilling is unacceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Chin up, Reyk! Lev!vich 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's warning and urge Andrew Davidson to take it seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I also endorse NinjaRobotPirate's warning, and will enforce the same if I see uncivil conduct continue. BD2412 T 18:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding my support and my endorsement to this as well, please take this seriously. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It's nearly ten years ago (I did have to check, it wasn't imprinted on my brain) that I blocked Andrew for equating deletionists to Nazis, I really would have hoped that this would have improved since then. It really should. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought this complaint was something of an exaggeration until I saw this diff. Here, the user lists three sources that are ostensibly about the topic of eco-anxiety. The problem is that none of the sources are about eco-anxiety. None of them use the term even once. This kind of appalling editorial indiscretion is an enormous red flag. I don't know what to do about it, but it's clear this user is here to use Wikipedia as a venue for his own original research rather than a means to collate what third-party sources say about a topic. This is a really big issue as far as I'm concerned -- especially as the user seems to have sufficient abilities to make it appear as though he is following Wikipedia standards and practices when in fact he is flouting them completely. Something needs to be done. jps (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The OP who couldn't properly link a WP:DIFF aside, I was pinged by Reyk and I do concur that Andrew's behavior in some areas of the project is problematic, in two dimensions. First, an occasional lack of civility is an issue, coupled with a significant amount of POINTless disruption with AfDs. Few examples: 1) an edit summary accusing others of disruptive PROD (I think it is deleted now). 2) in another recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull Cave Andrew accused the nom (me) of "abuse of our deletion process"; his Keep vote was the only one there and User:Argento Surfer explicitly said 'you should stop tossing around these bad faith criticisms of "abuse"' 4) another recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byakhee saw where his keep vote was the only dissenting one saw him making yet another personal attack at the nom (me): "The nomination's claims are therefore false.". This has been pointed out by User:GizzyCatBella [103]. 5) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redbird (comics) he accused the nom (me...) of "cookie-cutter" nomination, his post there led to explicit criticism by User:Darkknight2149: [104]; and he used the cookie-cutter in other AdDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraz's Castle where again his vote was the only dissenting one 6) a pattern of dePRODing articles with an unhelpful rationale, and not participating in the resulting AfDs even when pinged directly (I could link dozens of cases like the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamaran or the still ongoing but quite clear Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purdue Outing Club; here's a random one from few months ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Clark - please note that this is not a case of 'once every few weeks', but rather 'several times a week'); this is particularly problematic when the dePRODs are done on content that is unreferenced and later not contested by anyone like the (still ongoing) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wingmen_of_Thanagar. His pattern of dePRODing has been subject to numerous complaints before like this recent one by User:DoubleGrazing: [105]; they are easy to see because Andrew habitually removes such warnings from his talkpage... through some discussions are preserved: User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Mass_prodding_by_Piotrus, few more at User talk:Andrew Davidson/deletion discussions but I think most are not archived and I don't have the time and will to dig through the diffs of his talk page. ANI archives, however, are more stable: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal:_Require_Andrew_Davidson_to_provide_a_rationale_with_each_de-PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD. I really don't know what to do, since this is not white and black, some of Andrew's dePRODs are valid, and so are some of his AfD comments. But the ratio of bad to good is a problem here. I really don't like the idea of sanctions when an editor is editing in good faith, and even through I disagree with Andrew quite a lot, I am not sure I'd support any topic ban. But one suggestion I do have is a custom sanction that would force him to provide a meaningful rationale with his dePRODs. Check: [106] and remember that it only shows kept articles (or ones nobody bothered to challenge again). But a lot of the stuff he dePRODs with no edit summary, not bothering to comment in AfD, effectively wastes community time (and I repeat - if anyone wants more data points, I can easily list several dozens of articles that Andrew dePRODed with a generic edit summary, that he did not participate in a resulting AfD even after being pinged, and that were uncontroversial deletes). And when he comments in those AfDs, as the diffs show, too often those comments are not constructive nor polite :( PS. To be clear: I don't mind deprods, and I don't want to topic ban Andrew from dePRODs, but what I see is a pattern of mass dePRODing with no BEFORE on his part, as evidenced by mentioned dozens of articles that he PRODed with no rationale, that in turn were AfDed with him being pinged and where he did not participate, and nobody else found any reason to keep an article. When this happens dozens of times each months for years now I think we have a problem. Andrew needs to stop dePRODing on a whim, and when he occasionally participates in a resulting AfDs, he needs to AGF the nom and make his arguments constructive, not battleground-ish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I did not link a diff because I had a single issue with the user. That of creation of an article with a picture and caption of a person to try to portray that person as maybe an environmental alarmist at best and a person with mental health issues at worst . If no one finds this as an issue of malintent, it would be better that I strike my comments and let others speak. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. - hako9 (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, in my opinion, the matter you brought forward is worthy of attention, and is relevant to the broader discussion, and there is no reason for you to apologize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Apologies are under-used here, but yes, this was my mistake - I didn't realize you meant the very first diff. Through next time it wouldn't hurt to make it more clear. I apologize for dismissing the OP's link. This is not a waste of time. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a gracious thing to say, Piotrus. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I... I really wish this wasn't something to thank me for. This project would be in much better shape if people would be more willing to say 'sorry' and 'thank you' more often. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, Oh man. Thanks for saying that. From the beginning of starting this post, I was constantly thinking, Am I assuming the worst in people or have I gone completely insane. I just want to make a final comment. I don't want any action against Andrew (atleast for my complaint of creation of that article. Reyk's and your issue, needs different look). I just want someone to say to Andrew that, Dude, that article, with that picture and that caption, was 100% INSENSITIVE and you just can not do that. - hako9 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I was pinged, I'll say that my interactions with Andrew have probably been disagreements at least as often as not, but I believe he's a net positive for the project. His standards for inclusion are lower than average, but his quality of contribution is higher than average - when he was reviewing a DYK nom for me, he actually bought the book and read it before passing so it wouldn't just be a rubber stamp. Although I can appreciate the sheer volume of deletion noms he wants to oppose is probably overwhelming, I would encourage him to put effort into improving the articles he defends rather than add a bullet pointed list of references to the AfD. That effort will either result in some WP:HEY keeps and people will start giving his opinion more weight, or he'll realize his sources weren't as useful as he believed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is nothing egregious here. And there is no need for the OP to say, "What the fuck is..." It does not make the argument better, it is distracting. Andrew Davidson has written a great article and many others on the project...that the OP misinterpreted the intentions of Andrew D who used a photograph of a well known environmental voice, is not the fault of Andrew D. This is also quite a dramatic revert by JPS also with a very...uncivil "Fuck no" edit summary. That the truth is offensive to certain editors is not a problem with Andrew D, and now that everyone has been overruled by Bradv's edit we can move on. Or maybe not...JPS also nominated the article for deletion as possible WP:REVENGE and that seems more egregious and disruptive to the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No need for action here except maybe a boomerang. If there was a valid case to make against another editor it should be possible to do so without use of the f word, calling them a troll or assuming you know what they think. Accusations that include phrases such as "He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target". Don't need further investigation - unless accompanied by a diff from the target saying that they hadn't actually meant an accusation but had only done it to annoy. The best way to deal with such attacks is to dismiss them out of hand. ϢereSpielChequers 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WereSpielChequers, because you know that the Colonel's accusations of racism and shilling are indefensible, you seek to dismiss the complaint by quibbling about its wording. Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Reyk _YO! 15:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they are indefensible, but that isn't the point. Using the F word, calling someone a troll and presuming you know what they think are not some minor typo that could be dismissed as a quibble. If there were valid complaints to make against the Colonel they could have been made without them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have tried to dismiss my valid complaints before several administrators in good standing backed them up. Bit late to protect your friend now. Reyk _YO! 16:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope none of our colleagues share whatever moral code led you to conclude that three accusations of racism merit "no need for action" but using the words "fuck" and "troll" merits "maybe a boomerang". Lev!vich 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The combination of the f word and the presumption of knowing what someone thinks means that I am unlikely to find the rest of the case convincing. a set of diffs setting out an allegation of trolling would be worth investigating, but it would be much much stronger without those two minuses. Taking this alleged accusation of racism. I disagree with the Colonel re the notability of Azerbaijani long service awards. Many organisations have ten year, fifteen year and twenty year long service awards. Wikipedia itself has a service award system, and I'm comfortable that it isn't mentioned in our article on Wikipedia. I suppose if I had taken part in that AFD I might have argued for merge rather than delete, if there were an article on Azerbaijani awards or perhaps to the article on the Azerbaijani government; but can't see myself !voting keep on that one. As for whether it is systematic bias or English language bias or indeed racism the Colonel himself doesn't as far as I can see presume to assume other people's motivation. There is a perfectly legitimate minority view among some in this community that our audience is the English speaking world, and that a topic like this might belong on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia but it doesn't really belong here. I don't share that view, not least because there are English speakers practically everywhere but also because our remit is to cover the sum of all knowledge and I'm aware that many of our readers do so via translation tools - our reach is beyond the English speaking world. However I wouldn't assume that someone holding that view was institutionally biased or indeed racist; let alone someone who, like me, wasn't convinced that any organisation's long service award really merits its own article. The Colonel did say some fairly disparaging things about deletionists in that thread, comments that would sink an RFA if he were to run there. But I read him comments as being more polite or less incivil than the person who used the f word and called him a troll. In short I take racism very seriously, I am very sure that the colonel does as well. If he were to accuse someone of racism I am confident that he would do so with good evidence, I don't see him using the word "racism" in that diff. ϢereSpielChequers 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So mentioning a "system bias" makes you a racist? He comments to someone from New Zealand [107] and someone from Poland [108] how they don't seem to mind if list of shopping malls in their countries don't have sources, but are willing to delete the list of those in Africa. Race was never mentioned nor implied. Just an accusation of a double standard for their own nations perhaps. Not assuming good faith though. Should've been worded differently. Dream Focus 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dream Focus, Why did you conveniently leave out this diff, where Andrew, called another user (who nac'd an afd) a "presumptious (sic) non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place".

  I am speaking for myself here, but I wouldn't like to be talked in that tone ever. IRL or online. If someone called me a presumptuous guy who needed to be put in their place, I frankly wouldn't complain. But why mention a user's nationality? What was the intent there? Notice the mention of nationality after conjunction "and", as if to belittle someone. Am I reaching here? Or Is this the kind of way and tone to speak to someone? - hako9 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hako9, actually Davidson is falsely attributing those hateful and racist views to someone else. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading tea leaves to assign motives or racist intent (I personally do not see it). Too often with written word, editors see what they want. Lightburst (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, How would you classify that projection? Some kind of paternalistic prejudice, to be too polite? - hako9 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the diffs supplied by Reyk at the top of the thread and I'm utterly shocked, especially from someone who I have worked with in many positive ways to write and improve the encyclopedia over several years. Andrew, this comment is a personal attack and I'm pleased to see that fellow administrators agree that is completely unacceptable to insult fellow editors like this. Please do not do this again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I haven't read all the diffs above, but I find these types of comments problematic:

• One long accusation of bad faith: [109],
• "where he managed to get the close overturned as the closer was a presumptious non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place." [110],
• "What the nay-sayers fail to explain is why we should single out African countries for systemic bias"[111].

The full comments from the above show more problems.   // Timothy :: talk  02:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some POV stuff about Britney Spears being better than other singers is being added to articles by two IPs from Massachusetts. Can we fix this? Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:1000:B026:D805:FCFE:8588:6FB6:B04F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1000:B016:1079:B55F:FE4B:6324:80CA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I've blocked the most recent one for a few days as it's pretty unhelpful editing - but these seem to be fairly dynamic Verizon IPs covering most of the state; we would have to rangeblock a /42 just to cover the range these two are on. It's pretty harmless low-grade stuff so I doubt it's worth taking any drastic measures at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 20:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth asking at WP:RFPP for protection if they return to specific articles.--Hippeus (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only Melissa Cherry is better, —PaleoNeonate – 04:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor was recently sanctioned for persistent edit-warring. Since then, they made edits to 2021 United States presidential inauguration in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP, which were reverted by another editor. In previous discussions, they have accused me of "deliberate malice" and "vandalism" for supporting the use of this photo of Joe Biden. Today, they added WP:SYNTH to Timeline of protests against Donald Trump which I reverted and warned them about. They responded yet again with personal attacks, accusing me of "stalking" them and intentionally "triggering" them. I also found that they are currently appealing their WP:AE sanction; their appeal contains lies and personal attacks against me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79. They have persisted with this disruption for months on end and have shown no sign of stopping or any acknowledgement of their behavior being disruptive. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any other explanation. It was @Tartan357's actions which started this whole sad business. I am the victim here, and if anyone should be sanctioned, it should be them.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a.personal thing between me and them. I asked them why they started this, but they immediately went here instead of discussing it in a civil manner...which begs he quesion, can a non-administrator use this symbol in someone's talk page? Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No comments on the validity of this complaint nor its rebuttal, but Arglebargle79, {{Uw-nor4}} is a standard template warning that can be used by anyone, if it's needed. And, {{ANI-notice}} is the required notice for ANI matters. You should have noticed the big, yellow warning in your edit window when you replied here. Notice the word, may. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arglebargle79, the "other explanation" is that there are perennial problems with your editing. Please stop accusing me of misconduct without evidence. What you wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79 was particularly frustrating. This has been going on for months, and at this point, it's harassment. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 04:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not examined this at all, so I'm not juding who is right or wrong, but "I cannot find any other explanation" exposes a logic flaw - the Holmesian fallacy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we are here. They could have explained to me why they did it on my talk page or the DNC page's talk page, but no. They came here to have me blocked.Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The chance someone is willing to explain why they did something tends to go way, way down when the way the person seeking an explanation asks is to accuse the editor of "stalking" and trying to "trigger" them, rather that just politely asking "hey, can you explain why you did X?" If that's your definition of discussing things in civil manner, I think that's a key part of the problem.Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that despite that, I have explained the reasoning behind my reverts every single time. As have all other editors involved. See User talk:Arglebargle79#September 2020 for the most recent example. Arglebargle79 simply refuses to see what's right in front of them, and has gone so far as to deny that they've written things that there is clear evidence of. It's WP:ICANTHEARYOU. This is perhaps best exemplified by their relentless war against the Joe Biden photo. Despite being sanctioned by the community for warring over it, they still, months later, are claiming: There was no consensus about it and the other was far superior. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he didn't. The first time, an offensive photo, to me, was replaced by a photo that was approved by everyone and is currently used by the campaign and its partners for the campaign. There was no harm no foul. The first thing done was to have me sanctioned. The last time, Tartan357...He KNEW about how I felt about the photo, The chart was created by me and I wasn't under any obligation to use it. But he, KNOWING how I would react, changed it to the offensive photo in question deliberately. The Community didn't sanction me, a single Administrator did after Tartan complained again, nobody else had any problem with the second photo, which was agreed for that page by consensus. It was a compromise. I accepted it and Tartan didn't. People change photos every day of the week here. Also, I asked him why he did AFTER he complained and started sanctions against me because he did so first. The second time, I asked again, and he said that it was the consensus picture, even though it wasn't. The warning about the Inaugural article was fictional and the march article was entirely links to other articles. There was no "original unpublished" research. Like I said above, it seems personal. I think I need an apology. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How's this as a compromise: Except for the timeline, GE debates, and the general election article, there aren't any left that needs major revision. The people who are doing the GE debates are doing an excellent job, and there's no reason for me to interfere. The GE article itself, won't need any real revisions until Election day. and there's no real reason to go near there since it will be primarily be the tabulations of the popular results and their analysis. As to the inaugural article, I'll leave it alone for the time being, although I think it's a bad idea. If Trump accepts a Biden win (or vice versa) then there won't be any need for any revision at all. Tartan doesn't go after me and I won't complain about them. Live and let live. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please just stop harassing me with your endless, baseless accusations. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Tartan357's kind link, we have the letter of the law" on this particular subject I quote:

"Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."

A perfect example of this sort of thing is deliberately replacing pictures with ones All knew were objectionable to a certain party (me)

Another quote from the "letter of the law" on the subject:

A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page.

An example of this is very thread, albeit this isn't "numerous" yet. . Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arglebargle79: please provide evidence Tartan has ever given you a questionable warning. AFAICT, they have only given you 2 warnings both of which seem reasonable. One back in June for edit warring. Another a day or 2 ago for no original research. Both of these seem to have been reasonable warnings. Please also provide evidence that Tartan357 is changing images to target you. I don't give a flying flip how much you hate an image nor that Tartan is aware of your hate. What we need is evidence the change is an action targeted at you. Finally, I think you're missing my main point anyway. I wasn't really intending to comment on whether harassment had occurred initially. My point was that you couldn't have it both ways. Either you can accuse the editor of harassment and triggering you, or you can say the editor should have politely and civil discussion the reasons for the changes before coming to ANI. You can't accuse someone of harassment etc then turn it around and say but wait, they shouldn't have come here since they should have just politely discussed their changes despite my accusations. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this further, I probably wouldn't have give you a NOR warning for the small number of edits Tartan357 reverted here [112]. As I articulated on your talk page, your editing was problematic since you provided no references so whether the inclusion of these items is justified is not something we can actually check from any sources since there are none. You cannot ask people to check out other articles. That said, removing the 2020 Republican National Convention protests from that list, even given a lack of direct citations, was a bit weird.

However while the specific example Tartan357 chose was perhaps not the best example to challenge you on NOR, you have had significant problems with OR in the past. This version of the 2021 United States presidential inauguration is an obvious example. Most of that content was introduced by you [113] [114]. Quite a few editors did indeed note the problems Talk:2021 United States presidential inauguration#What this article should be used for in the coming two months or so. (perma link) and [115] and [116]. While OR is not the only problem, it's definitely one of them.

I had an idea of your work there hence why I said that the NOR warning seemed justified. I don't think your going to get much sympathy for that singular warning, given the clear problems with your editing as well illustrated by the inauguration article, even if the timeline article perhaps wasn't the best example to concentrate on.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this whole sad mess is about ONE SINGLE PICTURE and that alone.

• The facts;
  • In June, I found the original consensus picture of Joe Biden changed to another one that I objected to. I found that the person had changed it to the objectionable picture pretty much throughout the series and that there was NO consensus, nor any discussion on the Same, so I changed it.
  • @Tartan357 (or someone else) changed it back. S/he insisted that it was consensus, and sent a formal complaint about me.
  • I contested the complaint and was given sanctions.
  • I tried and got a consensus on the use of a different photo in the Democratic convention page.
  • I posted a chart on that page using the consensus picture of Biden. I was under no obligation to use the objectionable picture. No one objected.
  • A week or so later, @Tartan357 changed the picture on the chart to the objectionable one. (see the above quote on harassment)
  • I changed it BACK.
  • @Tartan357 complained and succeeded in making further sanctions against me.

There was no reason for @Tartan357 to change the consensus (for that page) picture in the Chart. NONE. If s/he had decided to change it to another picture I almost certainly wouldn't have been triggered. I have asked Him/Her why s/he decided to use that particular picture and this thread is the result.

S/he also my saying that I found the picture to be personally very objectionable to attack me.

These are the facts as I see them. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arglebargle79, this really is not about the content dispute anymore; it's about your conduct. However, I will direct you yet again to my comments on the merits of the photo as you're insisting I've never provided any: Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Biden's photo. I and all other editors involved have explained ourselves well ad nauseam. Your statement that no one objected to your edit-warring is patently false: User talk:Arglebargle79#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion (2). In that discussion, you were also reminded by SecretName101 that you do not WP:OWN the content you create on Wikipedia. You created the table, but that does not mean you alone can edit it. Stop making things up. Nobody has wronged you; in fact, we've been very patient. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patient? You immediately had me sanctioned!...The link was before your chamge.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arglebargle79: Stop. That is a lie. I first warned you over your edit-warring on June 12. Your sanction was applied on August 18. Two months is not "immediate". — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 19:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions were first imposed in June. then you did what you did, then more sanctions were imposed. then you sent us here. I am just as sick of this as you are, if not moreso. AS to disruptive editing, there were over two thousand (I think, don't hold me to that number) edits on the DNC page in a period of two weeks. It was in a state of chaos. It is clear that we remember things differently. It's about the picture, everything devolved from that. I don't want to fight with you and As I said before, the major issues with the series have pretty much been settled. I'm trying to defend myelf from what I consider to be false charges with what I firmly beleive to be the truth. that's all. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arglebargle79: I see no evidence sanctions were imposed in June. You escaped sanctions with a final warning based on your commitment to wait for a consensus before changing the picture again. Although you apparently quickly broke this commitment in June, you still escape sanction until August. It's probably fair to say that Tartan357 did try to have you sanctioned in June but this was understandable given your edit warring and the going against your commitment to stop.

Since sanctions were never actually imposed, it's incorrect to say "immediately had me sanctioned". A sanction imposed in August for something which started in June is not immediate by any reasonable definition. Precision and accurate summaries of what happened matters which is unfortunately a problem you seem to keep having.

Also I see no evidence presented above that Tartan357 is trying to "trigger" you. As I said, your personal dislike of the image is at this stage largely irrelevant both because you have failed to really articulate your reasons for dislike of the image and also because of your ridiculous behaviour e.g. persistent edit warring even after promises to stop and continued false accusations of vandalism and other false or misleading claims. If you want editor's to care about your personal aesthetics concerns, stop treating your fellow editors so poorly.

I don't entirely understand why Tartan357 is trying to change to that particular image, but at the same time your summaries have been so poor I see no reason to investigate further and perhaps there is merit in using the same image of Biden in most articles relating to his presidential bid.

To give another example of why you claims are unconvicing. You stated above "I tried and got a consensus on the use of a different photo", but AFAICT, there is no such consensus. As other editors have already told you, this discussion which you keep linking to Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1#Biden's image, in the top infobox, died out with nothing even close to a consensus.

This discussion Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1#Biden's photo (which for some reason you never seem to link to) is a little better since the only people involved seem to accept your suggestion, however it's nothing close to any real consensus. Especially since there were concurrent discussions elsewhere Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Biden's photo. At most, it could be taken as a reason to keep that specific image in that one location until there is agreement to change.

And of course it still wouldn't justify edit warring and especially not in other pages. Indeed you were subjected to the 1RR restriction/sanction in part because you claimed there was a consensus when non seems to exist.

P.S. I don't think you want to encourage people to look through your edit history e.g. [117]

P.P.S. To be clear, when I say location I mean the infobox which is what that discussion seemed to be about. It's insufficient justification to require that the image must be used elsewhere in the page. To be fair, there doesn't seem to be consensus to use any other image either, so it's bit of a crap shoot and first contributor's choice may be as good as anything. Frankly I think the reason those discussions are so poorly attended is because no one cares as all the images seem fine. And important point here. If instead of edit warring on the DNC page, you had opened a new talk page discussion, pointed to that previous discussion with the very weak agreement to use your preferred image, and I mean the right one, the Biden's photo one not the earlier discussion; and importantly not accused anyone of vandalism or trying to trigger you, the photos may have been returned to your preferred image. Because you handled this so poorly, the result isn't surprising.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Not that it matters, but I was not the one who chose the photo in question. That appears to be a figment of Arglebargle79's imagination, and I strongly suspect they have chosen to take out their frustrations on me because I'm the one who reported them to WP:ANEW. There were several others who were much more involved than me in the use of that photo. It had long been in use at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, and still is, representing an implied consensus. It was aesthetically consistent with the other photos in that infobox, and with some general standards that had been discussed. I just reverted Arglebargle79's change and eventually took them to WP:ANEW. We're using that photo consistently across pages related to the primaries, but a consensus did develop to use a photo that Arglebargle79 likes in the infobox at 2020 Democratic National Convention. That is still up, and I did not try to change it. I changed the photo in the balloting table on that page to match the primary series, and other editors, including SecretName101, thought it was reasonable. It's still there. Arglebargle79 started warring over the photo in that table, claiming ownership over the table for having started it. That's what led to the second ANEW case and the August sanction against Arglebargle79. We're using Biden's official VP portrait at 2020 United States presidential election because it matches well with Trump's. Arglebargle79 likes that one, too. They only hate the one used at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and related pages. Throughout this dispute, they have made absurdly false claims in just about every comment. For example, they tried to argue that they hadn't changed the photo when they had, and even left an edit summary saying "it wasn't me". They've also repeatedly falsely claimed that they got a "clear consensus" for their preferred photo, and have falsely claimed that "no one objected" to their change, which they repeated above. Early on, they left this hate-filled message on my talk page: [118]. After the first ANEW case concluded, they created this talk page just to complain about the photo: [119]. During the August incident, they left this threatening message on my talk page: [120]. I could go on and on. Arglebargle79 seems determined to continue edit-warring and harassing me over this photo regardless of the consequences. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question was made by a certain DannyG15. [121], which interestingly, was the only contribution they made months. He had the right to put the picture there, although there was a discussion about it and there was a consensus to get rid of it (I wasn't the only person to find it objectionable). Thus it wasn't the consensus picture, and my getting rid of it in the other articles, in which I believe there were only three)

but wait! The Plot thickens!! on March 20 [122] our good friend Tartan357 changed the picture from the "consensus" one used for the previous few months to the offending one.

The original change was done on March 8 [123] by one User:Nick.mon, who changed it on the main infobox [124] and the template [125]

Was Nick's making a massive change in the middle of one of those anarchic middle-of-an event moments 'illegal'? I don't think anyone really noticed. All but the Biden picture were pretty much innocuous. there had been heated discussions on pictures before about all the other candidates. But not here.

I was busy with the withdrawn/minor candidates "results section" at the time (as well as the GOP), and then there was the plague (did you know you can get the ′flu in April?) Tartan mistakenly thought that the photo was the official consensus one and he reverted my legal reversions in good faith, inadvertently starting the abovementioned edit war. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a spat with the editor-in-question two or so weeks ago at 2020 Democratic National Convention, concerning (IMHO) his overwhelming 'un-discussed' changes to that article. Arglebargle79 is without doubt 'highly' energetic, but I wonder if within that mix, there might be some WP:CIR issues. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

most of which are to some extent, still there. If someone improves my stuff, I don't object.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to indent properly. Begin your posts with a capital letter & don't use misleading section links in your edit summery. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I second GoodDay's suggestion of a possible WP:CIR issue. Several of the links Arglebargle79 has provided above are not actually links to the things Arglebargle79 says they are links to. For example, I am not David O. Johnson. That is a different editor. Arglebargle79 has consistently shown that they are either unwilling or incapable of working with the Wikipedia community. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. You are not. When I f up, I f up. I f'd up when it came to links. When the adminstrators get here, they will get to where they are going. That was my one and only genuine WP:CIR action in many, many months, if not years. I apologize to all.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arglebargle79, that is not the only issue here. You really should not be editing your comments to change their meaning after others have replied to them. You've persisted in edit-warring over the photo, breaking your commitment not to do so on numerous occasions. You've also edit warred in other areas, tend to lie in your comments (e.g. your insistence that your edits are supported by a "clear consensus"), and have made relentless personal attacks against me over the past two months. Your behavior is unacceptable and has continued throughout this ANI thread. As this is now the third AN case addressing this issue, I see no reason to believe you have any intention of stopping your disruptive behavior. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 22:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You dumped on me for no real reason and that.was unacceptable. Everything derived from that. You put us though this, not me.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arglebargle79: No, I didn't. Nobody made you edit war. Nobody made you break your commitment to abstain from edit warring repeatedly after the first AN3 case. Nobody made you make repeated false statements. Nobody made you write aggressive and fanatical messages in all caps. If you still, after all this discussion and after having been sanctioned for edit warring, are going to stubbornly insist that there's nothing wrong with your editing when there very obviously is, then you have shown that you are unwilling or incapable of engaging in the consensus-building discussion process necessary for participation in Wikipedia. Instead of acknowledging the problems with your editing, you have persisted in your disruption and deflected criticism by peddling this conspiracy theory that other editors, especially me, are working together to undermine your perfect edits and are deliberately harassing and triggering you. At this point, a block is needed to stop your disruption. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 02:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tartan357:No. I never said there was a conspiracy. There was no conspiracy. It was just YOU. All the ANI cases were started by YOU, and the offensive edit in the Convention article was done by you. No one else. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin closure needed

Regardless of the outcome, this discussion has run its course and is in need of closure. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 10:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on something. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my complaint. This is going nowhere fast. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 12:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute started when User:The-Pope violated WP:DTR by leaving a message meant for new editors on my talk page.diff He then proceeded to make edits to Damian Barrett, completely restructuring the page on the grounds that it did not adhere to WP:UNDUE diff. I disagreed with his changes and reverted him, though I still implemented some of the changes. He proceeded to revert the edit back, a violation of WP:BRD, and in the process also violated the rules around Rollback only being used in cases of vandalism or disruptive editing. diff I reverted him back, on the basis that per BRD he needed to gain consensus for the changes, and left a message on his talk page asking if we could work things out by discussing them.diff He then proceeded to reply by accusing me of vandalism, and failing to converse in any meaningful way, instead throwing around personal attacks and snarkily acting like he was superior to me diff. He then reverted me for a third time. diff. Quite frankly, I find the complete unwillingness to talk and the shocking pace at which he devolved into throwing out personal space to be concerning, given he is trusted with the Rollback tool. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) In my outsider opinion, both of you could use a clue adjustment. I tend to agree with The-Pope that your version of the article was not balanced and improperly weighted negative assessments of Barrett's job performance. It was literally a majority of the article and half the lede; that's not the right balance. That being said, The-Pope's tone is way off base. Wikipedia policy explicitly makes it clear that NPOV contraventions are not vandalism. Repeatedly and dismissively reverting good-faith edits guaranteed that this would end up at an admin noticeboard. If both of you could drop the stick and figure something out on a talk page, it would probably save the admins some time here. Devonian Wombat, out of deference to the BLP policy, I recommend sticking with The-Pope's version for now, and if you feel strongly about your version, take it to a proper dispute resolution noticeboard. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  1. That wasn't a template; No annoying icon, no annoying "September 2020" header, no "Welcome to Wikipedia". It is too brusque, I'll grant, based on calling it a "hitpiece", but DTR doesn't apply just because some of the words were cribbed from {{uw-npov1}}.
  2. That wasn't an abuse of rollback (there was an edit summary). Non-issue.
  3. The "bold" part was when you (User:Devonian Wombat) added material. The "revert" part is when TP reverted it. The "discuss" part wasn't started by either one of you; the talk page is still blank except for Wikiproject templates. Invoking "BRD" doesn't mean you can write whatever you want, and anyone who removes it is being "bold".
  4. You're both edit warring. DW's self-revert after seeing Jprg's comment was a solid step in the right direction.
  5. It's kind of amazing how, after all these many years, people still throw around the term "vandalism" so loosely. User:The-Pope should really stop doing that.
  6. When there's a dispute regarding a BLP, we err on the side of caution. At first glance, DW was focusing pretty hard on the negative; and putting "The Voice of Treason" as an "other name" in the infobox was not good.
  7. It seems likely that if you both can get over your annoyance with each other and discuss it on the talk page, a better article will result than if either of you tried to create it alone. That's kind of the operating assumption around here.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You can focus on the dispute, or you can focus on the BLP article as I found it, which, if WP:CSD#G10 didn't have an unsourced requirement, that would have been my first response to seeing it listed in NPP. It had a single neutral intro sentence, then nothing but attacks on the BLP subject. Sure, it had lots of references, but most of the criticism was sourced to tabloid style beat up articles. I was appalled. I modified the standard LEVEL 1 warning and left it on the article's creator's user talk page as I started to clean it up. During my clean up, in which I removed the worst of the opinion and borderline defamatory stuff and actually added an actual summary of his actual career including his many awards, not just a laundry list of feuds and criticism, I had a few edit conflicts. Was very surprised when the other editor kept removing the actual neutral article content. So, I make no apologies for improving the article from an absolute hit piece more suited to a forum/facebook post than an article here, which, I still maintain is a sneaky form of vandalism - which did last for almost a month without anyone else noticing. The-Pope (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I dropped the ball here. Aside from The-Pope's inability to understand the word "vandalism", he's right about basically everything else. In retrospect, "hit piece" was not hyperbole. And while initially saying DW's version was too negative, I under-reacted to how appalling that initial version was. @Devonian Wombat:, if that kind of thing continues, you may find yourself subject to a WP:BLP-related discretionary sanction. Once I figure out the byzantine system for leaving DS alerts, I'll post one to DW's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I see User:Woodroar already left him one on 16 August, after the initial creation of the substandard article, but before all the edit warring. Not sure if sanctions should be considered now, or (I think my preference) if this should be considered a final warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In case it matters, I left the DS warning because of this edit, where Devonian Wombat moved (but retained) a court document and added a self-published source on a BLP. Woodroar (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Floquenbeam, sorry if my initial comments threw you off. I was trying to defuse the situation but may not have gotten the balance right. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If a deliberate and egregious BLP violation isn't the worst type of vandalism then what is? Cluebot can pick up someone adding "poopypants" to a name or changing their weight to 800 lbs. It can't detect this. I stand by my edits. The-Pope (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one minds, I'd like to withdraw my complaint here and apologise. After having a little while to think it over, I do agree that The-Pope's version is better. I still maintain that the accusation of vandalism was uncalled for, but I can certainly see the WP:BLP problem with a good degree of the old version, and I admit I should not have reverted it, so sorry about that The-Pope. In my defense, the revert thing happened around 11pm and I posted this here around 6am, so I think I just was groggy and wasn't thinking straight. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This rant at DRN by User:217.138.33.132 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=976634989&oldid=976604525&diffmode=source ends in a legal threat, "Legal action will ensue should no actionable response be received. " Please block the IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned user about making legal threats. An admin can take care of this beyond this point. Goose^(Talk!) 04:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic "Green Grabbing" rephrases a title from a single newspaper article describing "Green Grabbers". The author of the article targets innocent people to justify the page. If you are going to write stories about people, it should be policy that authors use PRIMARY SOURCES that are VERIFIABLE. The current source is unverifiable and a matter of opinion. It is not encyclopedic, it is editorial. Are you trying present factual truth or hearsay? The author is using Wikipedia as a vehicle to present personal views as fact and defames innocent people in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.33.132 (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous that a block is in order for the legal threat. Toddst1 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adding unref'd content to Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show), failing to meet WP:BURDEN. WP:EW behavior repeatedly re-adding unref'd content after reversion. WP:BATTLE attitude based upon edit summary in this revert. Blocked five times for 3RR and edit warring. AldezD (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for 2 weeks, in particular, after this gem.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looking at roughly their past 500 edits (about a year for them), we have a variety of problematic edits from PeacePeace:

• Suggesting that we should say "QAnon postulates a conspiracy" instead of pointing out that QAnon is a collection of (moonbatshit insane) conspiracy theories
• Whitewashing the OANN article to say that the conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich are not conspiracy theories and to cover up the allegations about Roy Moore
• Whitewashing the OANN article again to pretend that it nobody says it spreads conspiracy theories
• Pretending the Nazis murdering gay men wasn't relevant to an article about gay Neo-Nazis ("but it was unsourced!" -- it was part of the plot summary)
• "the MSM is not a reliable source"
• willfully false information apparently isn't lying, dismissing someone as living "in that hut in Kenya" is somehow not racist
• assuming anti-Trump sources aren't trustworthy and need attribution
• allegedly alleging that alleged allegations were only alleged in defense of the known phenomena of police brutality
• So it's OK to take at face value right-wing claims from OANN, but those on the left can only allegedly claim to want justice?
• Wanting us to remove the well documented (and adequately sourced) point that Ghislaine Maxwell hung out a lot with Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Dershowitz. (sarcasm)I'm sure it's Clinton's reputation he's concerned about(/sarcasm)
• defending the reputation of Zero Hedge
• allegedly alleging that alleged indictments are only alleged allegations regarding Steve Bannon's co-conspirator in the Wall fraud scheme
• "SPLC is not a reliable source, but an opponent in the cultural war"
• all kinds of whitewashing at the Sean Hannity article: pretending that Birtherism, the idea the DNC may have murdered Seth Rich, and that Hillary Clinton is secretly an alcoholic epileptic aren't all conspiracy theories
• Granted in an edit summary, but putting mass shootings in scare quotes is rather poor form.
• Trying to justify the murder of a child with the argument that the child was wielding a sidewalk as a weapon (I guess the man who approached him with a gun was just defending himself).
• A single article from the Washington Times (which is somehow multiple sources) trumps multiple sources from the Daily Beast, WaPo, and the Hill that address the denial claim make the Times piece is used to push for
• And then there's this bit of dame-smacking chauvinism.

Some edits to religion articles have largely not yet been fixed due to lack of attention, but are problematic nonetheless:

• treating rather specifically Anabaptist views as almost the entirety of "non-RCC" views, arguably dismissing Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans (who disagree with those views as merely "professed Christians"
• asserting that one denomination holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith while another does not
• Citing a blog for their issue with Campus Crusade for Christ not including "Christ" in their shortened name "Cru"
• Apparently all Christians believe in the Rapture, which would suggest that those who do not maybe aren't
• See? Rapture theory dates back to the Church Fathers and that's not just a retroactive reading to justify that interpretation. Cites this mess to support this claim
• Apparently Catholics don't believe that Joseph's other kids were from a previous marriage (or is it that Papist views aren't worth mentioning?), Anglicans and Lutherans don't have saints (or are Anglicans and Lutherans Catholics now?), and fundamentalist blogs are reliable sources
• A single article from Journal of Evangelical Theological Society is completely equal to sources from Oxford and Blackwell
• Catholics are Mariolatrists
• Baptists aren't Protestants? See Baptist successionism for where this WP:FRINGE claim originates
• Trying to justify corporal punishment of children by dismissing researchers as mere "objectors"

They have some edits outside the topics of religion and politics that I'm not immediately spotting issue with, which is why I didn't just indef them. However, in the areas of politics and religion, we have a user who is not here to summarize mainstream sources but wage a culture war. By their own admission they don't accept the reliability of mainstream sources and their actions show they will choose to oppose such sources because of that user's own ideology. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, I ran over to their earliest contribs. It would appear this behavior is not a recent trend. Climate change (and other known science that some politicians try to dismiss as political inconveniences) may be another problematic area. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support a site ban on the basis of this compelling evidence of WP:NOTHERE. Thank you for marshaling the evidence. Neutrality^talk 04:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, site ban for this disruptive person. I was trying to figure out what MSM meant, relative to racist politician Steve King, and I finally realized it meand MainStream Media. So this person does not think mainstream media is a reliable source. WP:NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I have checked definitely do not look good. Site ban is an option, however, they have been here for several years and never got a single warning (in fact, they even got one personal invitation to comment in a discussion). Whereas it is quite possible that they perfectly know what they are doing, there is also a chance they do not understand out policies just because nobody cared to tell them that what they do is not in line with the policies. We can as well try topic ban on politics and religion, broadly construed, and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here were some (newest first): Special:Diff/969200996 Special:Diff/956743440 Special:Diff/913686794 Special:Diff/913653296 Special:Diff/913598248 Special:Diff/894173638 Special:Diff/865793161 Special:Diff/846608661 Special:Diff/776608157 Special:Diff/736596854 —PaleoNeonate – 07:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I was stupid enough not to check the talk page history. Well, we could still try a broad topic ban, but the fact that they have not listened to warnings makes me less motivated to oppose a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support siteban and/or topic ban from politics and religion, broadly construed. Honestly, there's significant enough WP:NOTHERE that I would not have too much concern of losing even a minimally productive longterm editor--insofar as they appear to have extremely low ratio of productive benefit relative to disruption, and I'm dubious they will move without complaint into other areas where they will be a more sedate and practical editor respecting our policies and neutral approach. All of that said, Ymblanter has a point about there being some benefit in general in attempting the most minimally effective sanction first. The caveat there is that it would be nice if the close made it clear that any admin enforcing the topic ban should feel encouraged to start answering violations of the ban with long-ish blocks (if not an indef from the first violation), so that we are not just kicking the can down the road if this user chooses not to respect the restrictions the community puts on them but instead ignores them, waiting out blocks in a serial fashion. Given what I am seeing above, I think there's better than even odds of that being the general response of this editor to a topic ban. But that skepticism not withstanding, I agree with another point of Ymblanter's observations above: our response should possibly be tempered by the fact that we have not, as a community, yet engaged with this editor about the shortcomings in their approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The user page is also interesting. —PaleoNeonate – 07:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban after checking a few of these, I conclude that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an accurate and NPOV encyclopedia. I do not support a topic ban because it would be difficult to enforce; edits (even problematic ones) to low-watchers religion articles are likely to go unnoticed, which makes them significantly more disruptive. (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban. I'm a little uncomfortable over the lack of any warnings. But I've looked through most of the examples given above, and I'm seeing chronic perversion of Wikipedia to push a personal political and religious agenda. The political issues are possibly less of a problem, as they are more obvious and are easily reverted. But the religious changes are often avoiding detection and remaining for lengthy periods (I've reverted 2 or 3). Given the history and agenda, coupled with PeacePeace's apparent belief that they're an expert in deductive logic (see their user page for their approach to knowledge) and that "The God of the Bible exists; 2) The Bible is the Word of God" are "two self-evident axioms which open the door to knowledge"*, I think this is someone incapable of putting aside their own views when contributing. It's very rare that I'll support a site ban, especially as a first approach solution, but I can't see an effective lesser solution here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  *Clarification: It's not the belief that the Bible is the word of God that's the problem, the problem is the conviction that it's axiomatic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, scrap that, it doesn't really get over what I mean. It's the entire approach to knowledge as espoused on the user page that's the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban I have long felt that PeacePeace is unable and unwilling to edit this site appropriately. Thanks for assembling the diffs. I favor a site ban. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting an issue with the complaint. The ANI complaint describes[126] the Killing of Trayvon Martin as a "murder". That's not the way the jury saw it, and it's not the way we describe it in our article, either. Additionally, the complaint says that Zimmerman "approached Martin with a gun". Again, that's debatable. Zimmerman's defense was that he did search for Martin but did not find him and instead started heading back to his truck, when Martin initiated the confrontation. Not taking a position on the truth of this (and neither did the jury's verdict), but neither is it appropriate to siteban someone based on a complaint which takes debatable assertions as fact. Pinging Ian.thomson. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Point taken, and - oh, look - a squirrel! Narky Blert (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 28 diffs in the initial complaint demonstrating NOTHERE editing by PeacePeace. This editor consistently discounts reliable sources in favor of their beliefs. There are also a number of diffs linking to talk page admonishments. I don't understand what will be accomplished by challenging some sort of position on only the Trayvon Martin killing. There is plenty of evidence here for initiating a site ban or a very broad topic ban supported by the community, without discussing this issue. I don't get why you are asking an editor to defend their position about only this one thing? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a perfectionist. I'm actually not asking for a defense but a correction. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here is another one. This diff [127] is in considerable part complaining about the phrase "all of whom have been accused of sexual assault". That portion is no longer in the article, which has got to be a good change. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Administrator Ian.Thomson is opposed to NPOV, so much so that he cannot tolerate even questions on a Talk Page about the propriety of content in articles? Is it proper for him to object, for example, to posting the true observation that many baptists do not approve of others called them "Protestants"? Then is it proper for him to claim that the source of this is a "mess"? V Raymond Edmond, Wheaton College president, presented research on this topic which is hardly a mess; Light in Dark Ages. https://www.amazon.com/light-dark-ages-centuries-commission/dp/B0007ENLSM/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=light+in+dark+ages+edman&qid=1599337665&sr=8-1 Are some persons on Wikipedia so committed to their political agenda that they may not tolerate the asking on a Talk Page to consider other POV? Is it a sign of bigotry when an editor wants to Edit War over a Talk Page post, or some adminstrator wants to squash it by removing mere discussion from a Talk Page? Should this be regarded as bullying by someone determined that only his opinion and agenda be allowed on WP without even serious discussion of alternatives? Does anybody have a license to use this language in scoffing at somebody's theories? "(moonbatshit insane) conspiracy theories". Does anybody agree with me that using "conspiracy theory" to win an argument is using a slur word as an easy alternative to presenting evidence like, "This explanation of an event involves a conspiracy, and here are the names of the persons whom the explainer says conspired. It was not just one person according to the explainer. And his sources are unreliable for the following reasons . . ."? I suggest that the comments about George Zimmerman having murdered a child be deleted for BLP. Are all the objections to my talk page comments being made in order to further some political & religious agenda, rather than promote NPOV on WP? Is it honest for an administrator to claim that I said catholics were mariolators, when what I posted was "There exist a variety of Christian views on Mary ranging from the focus on the veneration of Mary in Roman Catholic Mariology to claims by others of mariolatry." Examine carefull7 the charges by this adminstrator and conclude for yourself if his presentation is honest or not. Are his charges trumped up & driven by his political and/or religious agenda? Did I ever edit war over anything?(PeacePeace (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

Starting off with a personal attack in the form of a rhetorical question was a bad move. Using anecdotal claims to defend content points doesn't help either (I can count the number of Baptists I've met on one hand who object to being called protestants, and I'm Baptist). It is appropriate to call a WP:FRINGE source a mess. Would you accept similarly academically low-quality sources from Muslim or Hindu sites? Don't pretend the answer is "yes," we know it's not.

Are some persons on Wikipedia so committed to their political agenda -- at best, that's a Tu quoque, but you don't have any evidence for it.

Claiming I made accusations I never made also doesn't help (no one has accused you of edit warring on this page, don't try to distract people with strawmen).

Also, if you can't accept that QAnon (the fascist cultus based on the Pizzagate conspiracy theory) is a conspiracy theory, I'm gonna need to go ahead and block you under WP:CIR (whatever the result of this discussion is being independent of that and this result applying should you ever come to your senses enough to be unblocked). QAnon is so patently obviously wrong that if you don't get that, you shouldn't be editing, period. It's not politics, it's basic awareness of reality.

I'm giving you real advice right now: your only hope to avoid a site ban (or at least an indefinite block) is you agree to a topic ban from religion and politics articles. Emphasize your edits to other topics, like technology, -- Oh, you just posted a 10,000+ byte screed to my talk page claiming Birtherism is weasel word, a substitute for a rational consideration of where Obama was born, advocating a book that calls a witness to the Trayvon Martin's killing a "plus-sized" fraud, arguing that Martin was trying to murder Zimmerman, and engaging in a form of homophobic Holocaust denial with Whether or not Nazis were in favor of men-lying-with-men, or persecuted them requires presentation of reliable research. I will pray that Christ teaches you what reason is soon but until that happens, you need to be elsewhere. Site ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Topic ban, religion and politics, very broadly construed. Based on the 28 diffs in the initial complaint and the talk page admonishments I have to go with broadly construed topic ban until PeacePeace can show that they can edit in accordance with guidelines and policies. I know editors and admins might have to be Johnny-on-the-spot about enforcing this, but I am not seeing overtly contentious editing. I mean that I am not seeing edit warring and don't see editors mired in endless combative talk page discussions. So, maybe there is at least a strand of hope. If there was editing warring and contentious talk page discussions I would definitely say "site ban" as a lost cause. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Site ban - the fact that he has made a few constructive edits is irrelevant. This very well evidenced complaint is a slam dunk. You could add just random words to articles and occasionally they'd be correct. A very few positives does not offset the tremendous amount of poor quality edits. John from Idegon (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban. Sometimes really bad actors manage to avoid warnings, and this editor is an overwhelming net negative. Miniapolis 21:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Site ban. I was wondering when this user would show up here. I feel like I fell victim to Bystander effect. Ian has the right of it.--Jorm (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Site ban (first choice) or TBAN (second choice). Here to Wrong Great Rights. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   "SPLC is not a reliable source, but an opponent in the cultural war"

I'll only reply to this because it's relevant about Wikipedia: Chosing the Washington Times over WaPo & MSM is NPOV. If you don't like it, you are free to revert it, as I don't edit war. I don't really know what you refer to, if it is a comment on the article's Talk page. You seem to think that a comment on a Talk page which disagrees with your liberal agenda, is a damnable sin. Have you looked at the assessment of the Washington Times at WP:RSP? Favoring better sources because there is community consensus that this one is suboptimal is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT... Then about talk pages: they are not forums for general discussion and political debates (WP:NOTFORUM). —PaleoNeonate – 01:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PeacePeace, you aren't helping yourself there. I haven't seen any evidence that Ian.thomson is "obsessed", merely that he is concerned about your edits. And even if there were such evidence, the accusation itself runs counter to WP:NPA. I've asked him for a correction above, and now I'm going to ask you to strike that claim per WP:NPA. I would further note that the many users who are voting for a site ban are saying that you can't or won't change. Are they right? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ripe for SNOW CLOSE SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's nowadays supposed to be another 48 hours to go on this. I had indeffed on the basis of the screed above and then reconsidered, but we can let this go another couple of days, I suppose. However, I'm inclined to place a term block for personal attacks and continuation of the behavior that's being examined. This editor is advancing a partisan personal set of agendas, and their userpage indicates that they're not interested in working with other editors, as they alone are the sole judges of truth and falsity. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban The notion that articles from the mainstream media should be rejected as reliable sources about Trump is ludicrous and entirely contrary to the philosophy of this encyclopedia, which is not called Conservapedia. Then there is the TLDR ranting and raving, and the unfounded accusations against named and unnamed editors. I am sure that this person can find another website where their misbehavior will be tolerated. Not here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Broad topic ban from Religion and Politics There seems to indeed be disruptive editing in two areas. Banning theeditor from them should soon reveal whether they have the potential to edit constructively elsewhere. It will be easy enough to go the next step if needed. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban Considering this reply when invited on ANI: Special:Diff/976932815 I don't think this attitude would be constructive in any topic area. The user also claims to retire in the next edit, an unfortunate indication they were only interested in using Wikipedia for advocacy instead of moving on... —PaleoNeonate – 02:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with PaleoNeonate, it seems to me these last screeds and possible retirement are indications this user was only "interested in using Wikipedia for advocacy instead of moving on." It appears they were not interested in forging any kind of agreement with the community. So, I say, good riddance. I don't appreciate having my time and other editors' time wasted. --Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Site ban I have struck my previous Ivote. I am changing it to "site ban" based on the 28 diffs in the initial complaint, the talk page admonishments, and Peace's various rants in response to this discussion, which can be found here and other editors' talk pages. See above diffs for other editors' talk pages pertaining to this matter. The aggregate of observed behavior indicates PeacPeace promotes advocacy while discounting reliable sources, and demonstrates a lack of interest in community feedback. NOTHERE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban Peace's rant says it all. Basing off the evidence that others have presented, he is clearly NOTHERE. Goose^(Talk!) 20:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, this started with this revert [128] of mine at Kolkata Airport, which was perfectly inline with this discussion on the article's talk page here (although at that point I was unaware of the discussion) on August 21. Adityabill2001 comes to my talk page and repeatedly and calls me nepotist mafia . I did try to reason with them and tell them to take criticism (warnings/talk page discussions) in the right manner, continue editing and maintain civility but to no avail the user continued with the temperament and nepotist mafia name calls. I discussed the issue with my NPPS Instructor (Barkeep49) , on my course page. Barkeep gave suggestions on how to deal with a situation like this. I followed Barkeep's instructions and gave a calm reply to Adityabill2001 on my talk page, which went well and everything was over and the user and I had no further interaction until today, when I reverted this edit of Aditya [129] and left an edit summary why I did so , he came to my talk page (after reverting my edit) in decent manner, and I tried to reason with him again but he started saying things like "hope this satisfies you" and I explained to them that its not about satisfying me but policy/consistency and that they could bring it up on the articles talk. They reply you will understand nothing which prompted me to give one last reply before closing the discussion telling them to read policies and wished them happy editing. Before I could close it they reply Bhai, chor de iss baat ko. Tere se nahi hoga (translation hi: Dude, you leave it you can't comprehend this). Honestly, I did not want to bring this to ANI (as I mentioned to Barkeep on my course page) but this name calling business is probably going way too far. Bingobro (Chat) 08:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just had to revert another edit. Earlier this year they also were edit warring and trying to change the main photo despite clear consensus on the talk page. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked for being ignorant and edit warring. He was also rude to me, regarding the infobox image thing. Berrely informed me about this report and saw he went against the talkpage consensus oof the infobox image again. ❯❯❯   S A H A 09:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnabSaha:, @Berrely: I just got this on my tak page [130], by another user who had been adding the flight on the CCU article. I and Prolix had AGF reverted the users edit. Strange thing is no interaction when I reverted it or when Prolix reverted it but as soon as Adityabill2001 is no longer editing, User:NilInfinite has gone to my talk page, Prolix's talk and Berrely's talk page too. A sock perhaps? Bingobro (Chat) 09:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bingobro, yeah I was about to ask them that, quite likely, but there isn't sufficient evidence. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berrely:I find it weird that Aditya goes against clear consensus, gets blocked for edit warring, was rude to Saha, continues disruptive editing and namecalls along with reverts but we're supposedly the "nepotist wikipedia mafia" . Bingobro (Chat) 10:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to get the page for the Falkirk Triangle filled with some basic overview material on the history of the area with UFO's in Scotland. The page has been empty & threadbare for almost 2 years. Within about 30 seconds of me putting in a basic overview to start the page an editor came in and just deleted all of it. When i asked the editor to help me develop the page they just ignored the request. What can i do here? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.215 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the warnings and suggestions on your user talk page at User talk:109.249.184.215 which explain the problems with your edit and tell you how to edit appropriately. --Yamla (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• HAL333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

HAL333 was warned to stop pinging me at an RfC I disassociated myself from a couple of weeks ago. Today, at an AE case, linked to the RfC, they pinged me for a nonsensical reason. I told them, on their talk page, to stop harassing me. Despite this, HAL333 then "thanked" me for adjusting a spelling mistake in the comment they took umbrage at, ten minutes after I'd told them to stop harassing me. Not only that, this user then left me a barnstar, which I found to be both mocking and passive aggressive. Not only is this a clear breach of WP:HARASSMENT, it also weaponises the well-meaning barnstar and "thank" feature. Can somebody do something. There is an extensive history of this user harassing and stalking both myself and SchroCat, who because of such people, is no longer part of the project. Cassianto^Talk 17:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang Cassianto failed to mention that today's ping was prompted by this taunting statement in which he mocked several of us after an editor we had supported was CU-blocked. Because HAL used a ping while objecting to this, Cassianto ran to HAL's talk page to accuse him of harassment. The problem here is Cassianto, not HAL, and he is displaying a stunning lack of self-awareness by opening this thread. Moreover, it's ludicrous to suggest that HAL was harassing Cassianto by thanking him for making a change that HAL had requested. The barnstar may have been a poor decision (or it may have been a sincere attempt at an olive branch), but both myself and HAL have been repeatedly subjected to Cassianto's incivility without any effective measures being taken to bring him in line with WP:NPA. Also, because of such people is a personal attack. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, can you tell me how a comment that includes the Cambridge Dictionary recognised word for the pluralisation of a group of males is "a "personal attack"? Secondly, how is it justified, in any situation, for someone to then harass another after they've been specifically told to stop harassing the other person? I had no idea harassment had its boundaries. Thirdly, I didn't "run" anywhere. I'm sat on my settee, with a stunning bottle of red, in awe at such a desperate comment by yourself, simply said so you can to have your say. Desperate. Cassianto^Talk 18:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, Cassianto referred to me, LEPRICAVARK, and two administrators as "messers". I was not familiar with this term: Cassianto often uses British slang. According to Urban Dict, it is "Irish slang for a sloppy or messy person; someone who fails to take things seriously; a hopeless amateur, a gobdaw." Wiktionary defines it as "someone who messes". Accordingly, I respectfully asked Cassianto to strike through this personal attack. Cassianto was annoyed by my pinging him (which plenty of other people were doing at arbcom) and left a message claiming that I was harassing him. I responded courteously, without a ping. Cassianto then corrects the personal attack to "messrs", which, according to Google, is "used as a title to refer formally to more than one man simultaneously, or in names of companies." I found this a clever solution and it actually made me laugh. The barnstar of good humor was an expression of good faith. I was being genuine and met no ill will. I figured it would ease up tensions, but here we are.... ~ HAL333 18:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Cassianto doesn't want you to ping him, he shouldn't talk about you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admirably done, Cassianto – admirably done! EEng 21:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Ignoring everything else, it is clear to me that Cass didn't want your name showing up in his notifications. A "thank" or a Barnstar both would do that. Therefore, these two acts were in poor judgement on your part (even if well-intended). It might sound unfair, but you should at least apologize for not respecting his wishes regardless of the circumstances (and please do so without a ping to Cassianto obviously). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already apoligized to Cass for the ping, and I am entirely ready to do so again. No hard feelings Cass - I'm sorry if I bothered you. (General question: Is a ping just when you use the ping template, or are all kinds of notifications pings. If so, I didn't realize that talk page comments are considered pings. I figured that if Cass was willing to comment on my talk page, he wouldn't care if I did the same.) ~ HAL333 21:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the meaning of that specific word, your overall comment was a blatant, name-and-shame cheap shot in which you taunted several editors that you dislike because I-82-I had been CU-blocked. I believe that's called gravedancing. And if you're going to talk trash about us, you lose the right to complain when one of us pings you in response. A full examination of the evidence makes it clear that the harassment is coming from you, not the other way around. I can't imagine why you thought filing this report would be a good idea. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark, strawman. I named those editors as they were, as you say, supporters of a CU blocked editor. If you find it troublesome having names - yours being one of them - connected to someone who edited articles while logged out, would it not be easier for you to say acknowledge and distance yourself from, rather than trying to divert the dirt? Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no diverting going on here. You engaged in bullying behavior and then doubled-down when one of your targets objected. And now you've doubled-down even further by trying to turn reality on its head and blame your target for the whole thing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs please. Cassianto^Talk 19:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already provided above, mostly by you. You took a cheap shot at myself, HAL, and a few others over the CU block. HAL took exception and pinged you in his response. You then threatened to report him. When he tried to extend an olive branch, you assumed bad faith and made good on your threat. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, a name which Cassianto is deeply associated with, has also made IP edits after reportedly retiring; however, Lep and I haven't even brought that up over there. Let's de-escalate here. Please? ~ HAL333 18:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, diffs of SPI case, please. Cassianto^Talk 19:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can do that here due to privacy reasons. However, I can email an admin if needed. ~ HAL333 19:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No diffs, no evidence. Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have previously given Cassianto a barnstar after a disagreement, and it seemed to have improved our relations. I was trying to do the same thing again and assumed he would respond similarly to last time. ~ HAL333 18:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @HAL333 and Cassianto: would both of you agree to a voluntary interaction ban say for 6 months (the length is negociable)?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Cassianto wants one, sure. How would it work? ~ HAL333 18:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ymblanter, why don't you deal with the harassment? Cassianto^Talk 18:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, apparently you are not interested. Fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Who said I wasn't interested? Your remedy may deal with future conduct, but it doesn't address what has gone on? Cassianto^Talk 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't possibly have looked at the evidence and concluded that both editors are equally at fault. The evidence makes it obvious that Cassianto voluntarily attacked HAL and then manufactured a frivolous reason to drag HAL here. There is simply no evidence of wrongdoing on HAL's part and thus no reason to sanction him. Sure, a one-size-fits-all iban might seem like a quick and easy way of resolving this specific dispute, but it won't do anything to address Cassianto's chronic incivility. He'll just move on to a new target and end up back here in a few months. Wikipedia's processes for dealing with bullying and incivility are terribly broken. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Lepricavark, I didn't drag anyone, anywhere. I posted the notification on their talk, as is customary, and it was then up to them to either come here or not. You really must learn to use less emotive language. Cassianto^Talk 18:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it was completely optional as to whether HAL would defend himself against this report or run the risk of being sanctioned by letting you control the narrative. Now, why do you think it is appropriate for you to name-and-shame HAL while simultaneously prohibiting him from pinging you? Why is it that he is not allowed to talk to you even as you continue to talk about him? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Lepricavark, so "drag" was wrong to use in this context then, was it? Cassianto^Talk 19:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not here to debate semantics. I want to know how you arrived at the backwards conclusion that you should file a report against the editor that you were bullying. And if HAL isn't supposed to ping you, why do you keep talking about him? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm not entirely sure why you're here, if I'm honest. Lepricavark, so let me get the straight: HAL, someone who supported an editor at AE who was then later found out to be editing whilst logged out, having previously declared "retirement", all over AE, supported the blocked editor by calling them " a constructive editor". What, I'm a wrong to point that out? Cassianto^Talk 19:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I know taunting when I see it. Anyway, I seem to recall that a friend of yours was blocked for abusing multiple accounts last year. I won't mention names because you know exactly who I am talking about, and you and I both know that you have hit the roof if someone had taunted you about that. Yet you taunted us and then threatened HAL for objecting. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Lepricavark, another straw man. You seem to like straw. Most of which, judging by your comments, you're clutching at.Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clutching at strawmen sounds like unwanted touching so people better cut it out. EEng 21:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by my comments, which I never expected nor intended to be a means of changing your mind. And stop pinging me. I'm clearly following the discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll do better than stop pinging you, I'll stop replying to you as I'm finding you incredibly tedious. Good night. Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TLDR: Someone extended Cassianto an olive branch and Cassianto's response was to complain to ANI about being threatened with a stick. Lev!vich 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich, The fact I had to warn them that I found their constant attempts to engage with me to be harassing, should've been enough to suggest that any offer of an olive branch was not wanted. Cassianto^Talk 21:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe we need an essay WP:Drop the olive branch and back slowly away from the _____________ (someone fill in the blank – how about dove?). EEng 21:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I was about to give you a barnstar of good humor for a second. ~ HAL333 22:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But you came to your senses in the nick of time, thank God. EEng 22:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not for nothing, but if you had used a real dictionary, you'd have clearly seen that "messers" is a (somewhat archaic) plural of "Mr." There's no case here, on either side. John from Idegon (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "messers" part isn't really the issue. Cassianto has basically told HAL not to talk to him anymore, yet Cassianto is still talking about HAL. That's extremely passive aggressive and one might even call it baiting. When HAL responds to the bait, Cassianto swiftly labels it harassment and tries to get HAL punished. That is textbook bullying and an editor who wasn't quite so well-connected would have been rightfully blocked by now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong emotions from both sides, to be sure. Voluntary avoidance between individuals, may be the solution. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have Cassianto’s page watchlisted because I previously dealt with an LTA that targeted him. I have not followed the specifics of the dispute between them and HAL333, but I will say I’m rather unimpressed by the barnstar here: Cassianto has made his feelings that HAL is harassing him known on many boards. When someone thinks you are harassing them the correct thing to do is not talk to them. Not give a barnstar using the contrived excuse that you were originally offended because of a typo that made something relatively obscure Irish slang and appreciate them fixing a typo as a “solution”. So yeah, I agree with Cassianto that the barnstar was a passive aggressive jibe. The olive branch theory just doesn’t make sense. I think an IBAN is the best option. If you keep interacting with someone after they tell you to stop that’s inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you keep interacting with someone after they tell you to stop that’s inappropriate. You are aware that Cassianto kicked off this specific incident by taunting HAL, right? If Cassianto doesn't want to interact with HAL, he should not bait HAL or even talk about HAL. Cassianto has no authority to impose a one-way iban between himself and HAL. The simple fact is that he did bait HAL, and now you appear poised to reward him for it. Based on what you are saying here, if I think someone is harassing me, I can say whatever I like about them and then report them for harassment when they respond. Utterly unreal. Why is Cassianto allowed to get away with this? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn’t call that taunting, though I also wouldn’t have made the comment myself. I agree Cassianto can be prickly (I think he’d say the same) but this looks to me like a contrived attempt by HAL333 to get Cassianto sanctioned for something that clearly wasn’t a personal attack and then when that wasn’t going to work, do the civil prodding of people you don’t like in a way you know will annoy them thing that a lot of people on Wikipedia do. Not talking to people who don’t want you to talk to them is a pretty basic norm of behaviour online, and it’s one we’ve usually asked people to follow here as well. I’m not going to say Cassianto was on his best behaviour in that thread, but HAL333 looks to be the one at fault in this specific case. Cassianto shouldn’t have to smile and put up with someone trying to goad him just because he’s a controversial editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't want anyone sanctioned (Fact This is the third time Cassianto has brought me here. For comparison, I have not brought Cass or anyone else here. ever.) and I wasn't trying to "goad" anyone. Did I bring Cassianto to ANI? No. As I have already noted, I previously gave Cass a barnstar and I received a warm response. ~ HAL333 00:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And if you are going to assume bad faith in my barnstar and interpret whatever Cass typed as a typo. Then why not apply the same standards to Cass's comment. Referring to people with the title "Messrs" while also criticizing them in the same sentence could very easily be taken as a passive agressive move. ~ HAL333 00:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  HAL333, "messrs" is a perfectly acceptable, old English word meaning "a group of men or a group of misters". The only way this could've been considered a "personal attack" is if I deliberately used the word to include someone whom I knew to be of a different gender. Now, because of past interactions (sadly), I considered these people to be men. Yours and Lepreverk's attempt to turn my use of this word into a PA is mind-numbingly desperate beyond the extreme. Cassianto^Talk 06:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought I had made it clear that my problem was with the overall tone of your comment and not with your misspelled using of "messrs". I have no difficulty believing that was a typo. After all, you keep spelling my name wrong even though it has appeared on this page at least twenty times. Also, why are you pinging HAL? I thought you didn't want to interact with him. You keep trying to have it both ways. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you still here? You've ignored my advice to take up a soothing hobby then? Might I suggest model aeroplanes. Start off small, matchsticks will do, then bolster wood, then once that's mastered, you'll be onto the proper kits. Or what about kite flying? There's nothing better: you, a field, some wind and the kite. Bliss. Cassianto^Talk 20:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'm still here and I'll continue to be here for as long as you continue to talk about me. I would be more than happy to disengage and let others sort this out, but I feel compelled to set the record straight when you misconstrue my motives as you did above. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't worry about straightening it because to me the record appears broken...Ah! There we go, collecting records! There's a great hobby for you to take up in absence of your Cassianto obsession. I have many happy memories of walking around dusty old vinyl shops with a hot dog and cup of tea, on a Sunday afternoon, in desperate search for a 1960s classic. Start off small, don't go big, and be sure to look out for immaculate sleeves and unblemished art work as they make all the difference. What a great idea! Happy hunting! Cassianto^Talk 22:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  HAL333, I think relationships can become frayed to the point where the only viable option is to disengage with each other. Where good faith efforts to mend it will be seen as bad faith not only by the other party, but, as seen here, by uninvolved administrators. When Cassianto started saying to multiple people that he felt you were harassing him that should have been your sign to rethink your approach. That it simply wasn't a time to mend fences. That's the lesson you should take away from this.

  TonyBallioni, editors don't, according to policy, guidelines, explanatory supplements, and respected essays, get special treatment because they have a reputation for being prickly. Your insinuation that editors need to respond to that prickliness by shrugging it off seems out of line with the Tony I know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right. From now on I'll have an isolationist policy towards Cass: no pinging, no wikilove, and I'll stay away from late 19th century English articles. ~ HAL333 02:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, apologies if it sounded that way. I wasn’t saying Cassianto should get special treatment. I was saying that people shouldn’t take his claims any less seriously here because of it. Like I mentioned below, a lot of the previous criticism of Cassianto in the past has been him acting uncivil in response to people trying to provoke a response. Here he’s reporting what at first glance looks to be a reasonable concern based on what you said in your response to HAL. I’m hard pressed to take someone who is trying to use the dispute resolution system here less seriously because in the past they’ve not used it and gotten into trouble. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Not talking to people who don’t want you to talk to them is a pretty basic norm of behaviour online. So HAL is supposed to just shut up and let Cassianto talk about him? Cassianto would not have to "put up" with anything if he hadn't brought up HAL's name in a demeaning way. Haven't you noticed that it was Cassianto who filed this report, not HAL? I'd take that as a pretty clear sign that it is Cassianto, not HAL, who is seeking sanctions. HAL merely asked Cassianto to strike an offending remark. He didn't report him or even threaten to report him. Please stop trying to be a mind-reader because it's a severe violation of AGF and a kick in the teeth to HAL after he has already been subjected to repeated bullying. This bullying is enabled by the inaction of noticeboards such at this one, where Cassianto's incivility has been repeatedly overlooked and ignored. If Cassianto does not want HAL to talk to him, he needs to stop talking about HAL. Stunning really that you won't even acknowledge that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  HAL’s contrived offense was in the middle of an AE where sanctions were being considered. It’s hard to take the claim seriously that he wasn’t attempting to influence the outcome. I also don’t think it’s unreasonable for Cassianto to have made this report. If I were him I’d have interpreted the actions the exact same way. Yes, I’m aware that Cassianto has gotten into disputes and at times acted in ways I wouldn’t say are civil; but there’s also a lot of people who try to bait him. If he responds to the baiting, which I feel is what’s happening here, by taking someone to a noticeboard, that’s a lot better than taking the bait. People have criticized him for acting out in the past. He’s making a report now rather than take the bait. We should take his claims seriously if they have merit, and in this case it looks like they do. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is Tony that seems to be the only claims you're taking seriously. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This case is pretty complex and I don’t think many came out of that AE with better feelings than before. I also think it left a lot unresolved, so you’re right that there are probably other things to consider as a whole. My analysis here is mainly in relation to the barnstar and offense at the typo comment, which to me doesn’t really seem that plausible. Regardless, even assuming good faith here, we have a situation where I think Wikipedia would probably be better off if they didn’t interact. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Tony, thank you for your clarification here and above. I think if both HAL and Cassianto would agree to an IBAN that could be beneficial for both them and the encyclopedia. However, I respect that Cassianto doesn't want one and would need to give further thought about whether this is a case where it would be appropriate to apply one anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, that's now you and Ymblanter who've now said I don't want a two-way IBAN. Can you show me a diff where I've dismissed this? If you had've bothered to look, you would've seen that I thought this was a good, long term solution. But what of the harassment conducted by HAL which brought us here in the first place? Is it okay for someone who's been told specifically to stop interacting with someone to then "award" them with a "good humour" barnstar and deliberately "thank" them for fixing a typo, knowing that only the person they're harassing will see it? My only problem with an IBAN to address this incident is that it feels like I get dealt with in the same way as HAL, by being told not to engage with them. Don't get me wrong I'd rather stick hot pins in my eyes than ever have to talk to them again, but it's not right that the harassed gets the same sanction as the harasser, and that the clear harassment that's led to it gets overlooked. I shouldn't have to ignore this type of behaviour and then get criticised for doing what I think is right, to come here to seek administrative intervention. Kudos to TonyBallioni for his responses here, but is it any wonder why I choose to take things into my own hands when I get this type of response at a board I'm supposed to come to when things like this happen? As on other occasions, it seems to be Wikipedia's firm view that "it's okay to harass Cassianto, that's fine, and if he bites then he'll get dealt with quite robustly. But if he tries to report it the way he's supposed to, via ANI, then we'll just ignore it and sanction him the same way as the person who's harassed him." Cassianto^Talk 06:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Cassianto, when ymblanter asked about an iban your response to was to ask what was being done to deal with the harassment [131]. As an iban is a way of dealing with the harassment I took that to mean you were against it. Can you provide the diff where you wrote that it was a good long term solution? I don't see it here, at AE, or my talk page which are the places I've been reading carefully but if I missed it in one of those places I apologize. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, no it's not, it's a shit sandwich. I would be as much under sanction as he would be. This "two-way IBAN should be a one-way IBAN. He is not allowed to contact me. That would deal with this and any future incidents. Cassianto^Talk 09:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  [132] Cassianto^Talk 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand. Cassianto, who says he doesn't want to interact with HAL, made an ungracious comment directed at HAL (as one of the other targets of that comment, I maintain my belief that I was being taunted, but you don't seem to be concerned about how that comment was received). HAL then responded to Cassianto, which is perfectly reasonable since Cassianto was talking about him. Cassianto misconstrued this as harassment, which makes absolutely no sense given that Cassianto initiated the exchange by talking about HAL in an unfavorable manner. As HAL has repeatedly said above, he previously had good results by using a barnstar as an olive branch. You are assuming severe bad faith on HAL's part while essentially giving Cassianto a free pass by dismissing his chronic incivility as nothing more than an understandable response to baiting. As one of his recent targets, I find your comments to be incredibly disheartening. I have disagreed with Cassianto, but I have not baited him. Am I to understand that Cassianto has some kind of special immunity that prohibits other editors from questioning or challenging his viewpoints? It seems like the options for a bullied editor are either to ignore it and perhaps be driven away or to fight back and be given an equal punishment. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See this as evidence that HAL had reason to believe the olive branch would work. I hope you'll reconsider your extremely harsh, ABF interpretation of HAL's motives. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not saying Cassianto should get special treatment. I’m saying his concerns shouldn’t simply be dismissed because he is Cassianto. We aren’t discussing long-term issues here, we’re discussing one incident. My reading of that situation of the one incident here is that regardless of what the past issues were, Cassianto’s concerns have merit. AGF doesn’t expect us to take a reading of events that doesn’t appear credible at face value. HAL’s explanation doesn’t add up for me, which is what I’ve expressed. I don’t want this to be used as an example in the future of Cassianto being a problem, because his concerns here aren’t meritless.

All that being said, I’m willing to go with an AGF reading of them for the sake of this discussion. Even if the motives were good, they weren’t helpful actions and Cassianto feeling targeted was a predictable outcome given that he’s expressed feeling harassed multiple times. It’s just not a good idea to post on the talk page of someone who feels like you’re harassing them. That’s not a Cassianto specific norm we have.

Both of them above have indicated to some degree a willingness to have an IBAN. I really think having it voluntary is the best outcome here. People who don’t appear to like one another should generally try to avoid interacting if it leads to disputes. That’s good practice in real life and on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You are absolutely giving Cassianto special treatment. My concerns that I was being taunted... nah, that's just Cassianto being prickly. But Cassianto's concern that HAL was harassing him by responding to a comment that Cassianto made about HAL... you've fully accepted Cassianto's side of the story and paid no attention to the fact that Cassianto initiated the exchange despite supposedly not wanting to interact with HAL. You have repeatedly extended AGF to Cassianto and ABF to HAL. Your commentary here is extremely one-sided. By insisting that we treat this as an isolated incident and completely ignore the long-term issues, you are simply paving the way for those issues to continue. Besides, when you first weighed in you were basing your input on prior allegations of harassment by HAL. So which is it: are we only going to talk about this incident or are we going to consider the bigger picture? Because right now, you are dismissing all prior issues with Cassianto while refusing the same privilege to HAL. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valid criticism of another’s actions is not an assumption of bad faith and keeping repeating that does not mean we should accept implausible explanations at face value. I’m not calling for a block or even a one-way IBAN. I also said I would not have made the remark’s Cassianto made there. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for HAL to respond. I do think tit-for-tat that takes a far-fetched reading of a typo and then leads to what reads to me as a passive aggressive barnstar on a talk page isn’t the correct way to respond, though. That’s not assuming bad faith, that’s looking at the situation and saying it’s reasonable to assume HAL knew it wouldn’t be appreciated.
    Again, I’m more than willing to disregard my first impression here and assume good faith. Even then I think them not interacting with one another is best. Even if HAL meant it well, it wasn’t smart to do and this was the predictable outcome because he knew Cassianto considered his behaviour harassing. I’m not assuming Cassianto was right in every circumstance at all. Just that it’s reasonable to not post on his talk page after he’s made it clear he thinks he’s being harassed. That’s not special treatment in the slightest, and recommending a two-way IBAN in order to try to prevent these flare ups in the future isn’t trying to give one side an advantage over the other. They both seemed somewhat open to it above before the thread got heated. We should try to let it work. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think I agree with any of that, but further conversation seems futile. I just hope HAL doesn't leave after the way he's been shamefully dragged through the mud here. I know I would. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it difficult to understand Tonyballioni's position. Unless there is actual harassment and following someone around (which I don't see evidence of here), the reasonable conclusion to me would be that Hal was trying to mend relations with Cassianto by trying to be nice. I would also like to be friends with everyone on Wikipedia, including Cassianto, but now I honestly don't know how I would go about that - the very first thing I would think to try would be to "thank" them for contributions we agree on or to leave something nice on their talk page, but now it seems like even that may not be welcome. I think it's unfortunate that Cassianto took this negatively, but I don't understand how it could be interpreted as anything other than an olive branch (especially as Cassianto continues to ping Hal, even here - this feels somewhat like "tag - no tag-backs!").

Aside from that, I REALLY don't understand how anybody could think that Hal is the one trying to get Cassianto in trouble when Cassianto has now twice in this discussion said they are okay with an interaction ban in the future but that it wasn't enough against Hal (i.e. pushing for further remedies). I haven't seen Hal ask for anything against Cassianto. The idea that Hal is trying to get Cassianto in trouble by getting Cassianto to come make a complaint about Hal is just too far-fetched for me. Ultimately, I think we're all making mountains out of molehills; nobody can force a friendship, and if it isn't going to happen, then it seems like Hal and Cassianto may be willing to avoid interacting with each other. Maybe that is enough to try for now? Ikjbagl (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikjbagl, the thank button can be abused. Not all "thanks" are in recognition of someone doing something good. Take a look at F. Scott Fitzgerald, an article I was keen to help HAL out with, and did so until he was rude and threw my help back in my face. I left him to get on with it and the article remains shit. I told him to leave me alone after he pinged me, which should've been enough. What did he do? He awards me a bloody barnstar! The problems re stalking have gone from Jean Sibelius, to Frank Sinatra, to Stanley Kubrick. Cassianto^Talk 09:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: You've gotten the timeline wrong. Kubrick was in March 2020 (first), Sinatra on 23 July 2020, Sibelius on 31 July 2020, and Sinatra in August 2020 (last).
While Kubrick and Sinatra are high profile battleground articles for the infobox debate, Sibelius is not. Therefore, it is the only clear example of following in that timeline is with Hal showing up on Talk:Jean Sibelius soon after you rejected their proposal for the Frank Sinatra lead image.
If you could respond to my request below, then this might get sorted out cleanly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, I have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say to you, so I think you should move on. Have a great day! Cassianto^Talk 20:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is needlessly unhelpful. I can't see a good faith purpose to this report if you aren't prepared to answer the most basic questions about it.
Comment. For Cassianto's own benefit, this report should be closed. Clearly he was not ready to open this dispute to public scrutiny. No action should be taken at this time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Cass brought up wikihounding:

Schrocat

• [133] I make over a dozen edits to Barry Lyndon. Within 7 hours, Schrocat reverts some of my edits. They had never previously edited that page.
• [134] After I edit Disney World, SchroCat shows up for the first time.
• [135] SchroCat edits a page they had never edited before just 35 minutes after my most recent edit.
• [136] SchroCat revert me within two minutes. They had never edited this page before.

Cassianto

• [137] Cassianto reverts my edit on a page they have never edited
• [138] Cassianto shows up at F. Scott Fitzgerald, which they have never edited, devolves to ANI
• [139] reverts my edit on a page which they have never edited
• [140] reverts my edit on a page which they have never edited

Can we just move on? ~ HAL333 18:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an extensive history of this user harassing and stalking both myself and SchroCat, who because of such people, is no longer part of the project. - This was stated without relevant diffs. I'd like to see some because that is an extraordinary claim.
  Follow up question because I haven't been following this: Did SchroCat say as much publically for being the reason they left? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell has Cassianto not been indeffed yet? Everywhere I see the guy, he’s either making personal attacks or acting extremely uncivilly.He literally told me to clip my ear after I complained to Teahouse from before I made this account, which was then brought over to ANI, just because I was complaining about another long-term editor disruptively editing. I don’t care if Cassianto has made good, sourced edits to pages, his behavior is completely unacceptable, I can tell now that many of us feel extremely uncomfortable with his bad attitude, and there is no good reason to keep him around. Anybody can add whatever edits he adds, but Cassianto had gotten away with breaking WP:NPA, WP:RUDE, and WP:CIVIL for way too long now. Unnamed anon (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and now, back to Mike in the studio. Cassianto^Talk 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Cleanstart time? --Moxy 🍁 21:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that is particularly helpful here. I see no reason Cassianto would need a clean start and suggesting such is rarely appropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a great suggestion and has worked many times in the past with editors of this nature ...they should try a new start before it's too late to do so.--Moxy 🍁 21:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, thanks. Moxy, of whom do you speak? Only your threading seems to suggest HAL? My oh my, we're all out tonight, aren't we! Happy editing! Cassianto^Talk 21:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should start up again. ~ HAL333 21:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Things have come to a stalemate, IMHO. It doesn't appear as though any action will be taken concerning this report, which has arrows being fired in many directions from different individuals. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Since this should be viewed within the context of the British vernacular, let us rely on Oxford's #1 definition: "A person who makes a mess, or who messes about; a muddler, a bungler." How is that NOT a personal attack?~ HAL333 22:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AnOrionPicturesRelease25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has already been blocked once for disruptive editing and page moves, and they continue to make these virtually every day. While not all of their edits are vandalism, many of them are (Special:Diff/976698583 and Special:Diff/976248213 in the last 50 edits) and as far as I can tell all of their page moves are disruptive. I feel they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, just to waste people's time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compounding the situation is that they have not, as far as I can see, communicated with anybody. I'm not convinced they're editing in bad faith; however, disruptive edits made with good intent are still disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They remind me of someone, I just can't recall who. Canterbury Tail talk 23:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not convinced they're editing in bad faith" Adding the names of Shuki Levy and Haim Saban to the article on shit seems like a BLP violation to me. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this editor is enough of a positive to the encyclopedia that we should go through the rigamarole of further escalating blocks. Re-blocked, this time as an indef, for disruptive editing and lack of communication. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He should have been named blocked right out of the gate, as Orion Pictures is a production company - {{usernameblock}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B011:1E33:19D1:DCA1:DACE:741F (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ÆCE (talk · contribs) as of late has taken to pages related to Sushant Singh Rajput and Rhea Chakraborty in an effort to include BLP-violating material.

Some background and context: Back in June, Rajput was found dead in what the press has for the most part described as a suicide via hanging. Unfortunately, his family and several dedicated fans reject this, and since then a few conspiracy theories have cropped up as a result, one of which essentially blames Chakraborty, who was at the time living with him (if I'm reading these reports right), of murdering him. At present, Charaborty is being investigated for abetment of suicide after the family's accusing her of same.

Onto ÆCE. While we've had no shortage of people who're trying to demand we remove the suicide claim from the article and its fork and infobox, ÆCE is instead trying to mould the text in such a way as to advance the "Chakraborty killed him" conspiracy theory surreptitiously; see here and here. He's filed spurious dispute resolution requests at 3O and at DRN, and shows no signs of listening to anything but mute assent. Cyphoidbomb and I have attempted to try to explain things to him as evenly as possible, but he only listens insofar as to find something he can use as a strawman and avoids addressing the most salient points (more specifically, the WP:BLP concerns Cyphoidbomb raises and the sources countering his position I've raised). Considering he's unwilling to accept any form of criticism and does not appear to be willing to see his interactions on those pages as anything but adversarial, I am asking that ÆCE be topic-banned from the topic of Sushant Singh Rajput's death, broadly construed. He has been DS-warned in re BLP/India, but after this MWoT I'm of the opinion he needs to be forcibly disengaged from the topic sooner, not later. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 02:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Link to notification of ÆCE: [149]) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 03:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding admins, please see the "prime suspect" content added here and here and here (all three are basically the same) and please see if you notice anything problematic about it before reading on. The source ÆCE used was Hindustan Times. I explained in sufficient detail at Talk:Rhea Chakraborty that the content the user submitted was poorly-conceived, and lacked sufficient context, and that this lack of context resulted in potentially defamatory content that made a very strong negative implication. It doesn't help that the Hindustan Times source makes the same unqualified problematic statement. The editor ÆCE not only failed to comprehend the problem, but then opened a dispute resolution case about it, despite this being a pretty fundamental "hey, stop adding this problematic content" issue. I explained it again, yet the user still seems oblivious as of this DRN comment (TL;DR: search for is a "prime suspect" in Shushan's death case). The editor is new, so some learning curve is maybe expected, but they seem to fundamentally not understand the underlying issue, that you can't make poorly-qualified statements about people's involvement in crimes. I now have questions about the user's competency to edit in this area. In addition to this, the user keeps wanting to expand the discussions into multiple tangents about various aspects of the case, and is doing so not only at the DRN case, but also at Talk:Rhea Chakraborty, at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput and Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. I agree with Jéské, that this feels very agenda-driven, and it has become a major time-suck for editors to follow the same arguments from page to page. If an admin wants to try to teach them the ropes, fine, but otherwise, there is merit to Jéské's topic ban suggestion. There seems to be no way to educate the editor or satisfy their every question and counterpoint. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

67.61.89.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring against consensus to insert original research at SpaceX Merlin. See Talk:SpaceX Merlin#Original research about environmental concerns. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have contracted the ANI flu, and stopped editing as soon as he got the ANI notice. Our usual practice in such cases is to do nothing and hope someone will refile if he resumes. Whether getting the ANI flu and then resuming editing once the ANI case is archived should be such an effective method of avoiding sanctions is a discussion we might want to have, but not here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel0754 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Massive unmotivated changes in numbers in the cards of military conflicts. Каракорум (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting here, that he attempted to remove this report.[150] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Каракорум: Typically we'd at least warn the editor. I've done that for you. Also, when you file an ANI case, you MUST notify the other person. You typically do that by slapping {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ on their talk page. This instruction is present in the giant box at the top of the page. I've taken care of this for you as well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]