Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of physical violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you need help on editing or help with your account, please ask the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.[edit]

Hi All, IP User is mass-editing articles such as Eurasia and List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia without providing any edit summaries and zero sources, since yesterday. Most information being added such as on Federation of Euro-Asian Stock Exchanges and Eastern European Group‎ does not seem to be constructive or accurate. I have tried to revert where possible, however the volume of edits is just too high in most cases. Many thanks, Archives908 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is deliberate, but it seems that some of their edits consisted of adding super-inflated world maps and other landmarks to various articles that disrupted the layout of the page, so I reverted some of them. I have no idea what the IP is trying to accomplish here but their edits probably need some eyes. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 15:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. I have no clue either. They are still at it...a new (unexplained) edit every few minutes. The user seems to be focused on geography from what I can see, but they're sporadic editing style with zero explanation is certainly not constructive; nor is the content they are adding. In the Eastern European Group‎ and Federation of Euro-Asian Stock Exchanges articles, the user added Turkey and Azerbaijan, respectively, as members (which they are not). In the Eurasia article, the user added Turkey and Pakistan under Soviet states (which, again they are not). I cannot explain what they're objective is, but it is disruptive nonetheless. I have managed to revert these edits prior to the disruption, but based on the trends in their edit history, this chaotic style of editing pursues. Any further guidance? Much appreciated, Archives908 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, have a glance at Istanbul Process, none of the edits make any sense. 12 edits done in a about 1 hour, with zero explanation. Archives908 (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
And now, they have moved on too List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania, 14 unexplained edits in less than 15 minutes. Archives908 (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
...and subtracted 1 mill square kilometers from the area of Angola ([1]]), blocked on Wikidata, reverted on Commons... - 4ing (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, 4ing for your help reverting the Users continued disruptive edits. Archives908 (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Archives908: Have you tried talking to the IP editor about these edits? Lev¡vich 06:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Please block the IP (even if temporarily to get their attention) as they just keep on making incorrect edits even after being reverted multiple times. DexDor (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree DexDor, this IP user is still engaging in disruptive edits. Just yesterday, the user made 16 edits in about 35 minutes on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia, with no edit summaries or explanation. Based on their edit history, this is the general style of their editing- mass edits with zero explanation, zero sources, zero rationale. This user has made a mess on several articles and does not seem to be engaging in conversation here (or anywhere). Several of their edits have been reverted and the user has been re-adding content with no discussion. Furthermore, their edits are not improvements to those articles and most of them should be reverted. Archives908 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This case has not been handled well. Levivich's pertinent question “@Archives908: Have you tried talking to the IP editor about these edits?” was not answered, and still there is no real attempt to talk with the user on user talk: I think that's the least we can do to AGF, and I will do so now. ◅ Sebastian 10:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe we may be past that now. The user is making (some) pretty advanced edits for a "first-time" editor. I provided a notice on their talk page on November 18th. The user has neglected to discuss on this noticeboard. All the while, the user continues to re-add incorrect content to pages- even after their additions were reverted. I'm not sure what exactly the "goal" is, but the user keeps re-adding the same/similar content as in the case of G20 and Federation of Euro-Asian Stock Exchanges, among several other articles. In most cases, editors have had to revert their mass edits as the edits are generally not constructive or are factually incorrect. The user also continues to provide zero sources, zero rationale, and zero edit summaries since they began mass-editing on Nov 17th. Granted no discussion was started on their talk page until now, but the user has had several other opportunities to explain themselves/provide rational and at the very least, acknowledge their actions here. Archives908 (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The user continued with the same kind of edits, blithely ignoring the note I wrote on their talk page. So I now blocked that IP for one week. ◅ Sebastian 16:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
We might consider mass rollbacking their category and mainspace edits. All of them appear to be incorrect to me (esp. the categories). Levivich harass/hound 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help Sebastian! And yes, I agree Levivich, the users edits are far from constructive and there are just too many of them to manually revert. Archives908 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan, at war again[edit]

Initial discussion[edit]

Page fully-protected for one month by Black Kite. (non-admin closure) Heart (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chronic problems on Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I appeal again for administrator intervention in these issues, which are both maddening and intractable. A previous post here was archived without administrator action or comment, but the concerted tendentiousness of multiple editors in favour of a virulently, nationalistic, and denialist fringe interpretation of the Syrian Civil War which wilfully ignores all evidence presented to it and is explicitly POV-pushing while unashamedly using the most contorted hostile sealioning strategy is too much to bear. Authoritative input is sorely needed, nearly all dissent has been banished from the talkpage by the interminable circularity of what passes for discussion, which has caused other to resign editing from exhaustion. Please help! GPinkerton (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I second this appeal. GPinkerton is refusing to discuss. He have a battleground mentality, and a very rude behavior, which dragged me into his level. Please convince everyone to be civil (and everyone was, tbh, before GPinkerton arrived). GPinkerton is also part of the content dispute, so we need a neutral arbitrator.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I propose the following: topic bans for the all the relevant editors, including the one above, from the following areas: post-1292 history, politics, and geography of the near and middle east. Their relentless campaign of POV pushing has been called out numerous times, but nothing ever done. I haven't looked at their other contributions, but I have a strong feeling all these editors are heavily focused on Syria-related articles such as these that can be adapted as platform for soapboxing, which is getting very tiresome now and is a net negative to the project, not to mention intellectually abhorrent. GPinkerton (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Above is a clear example of what I mean. The style of this editor is: if you dont agree with me, you should be blocked or banned because Im the only one who have a sound argument and there is no other point of view. Thats why we need intervention.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Examination of the facts will prove the comment above at characteristic variance with the nature of reality. Alas, the talk page must be read from the top. GPinkerton (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have fully protected the article for a month, which should at least stop the edit-warring until more lasting sanctions or similar can be imposed. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Continued Discussion[edit]

  • GPinkerton I'd advise you to reform your request for intervention. The article's recent history is very active, and its talk page has multiple lengthy combative threads going on. Please consider being specific about which editors you're talking about, and provide diffs that evidence the accusations you are making. GirthSummit (blether) 13:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    re-ping, botched first attempt GirthSummit (blether) 13:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Girth Summit All the discussion focuses on one issue, from beginning to end. It's been going on for many months with the same handful of editors. It's clear from reading the talk page who is pushing the peculiar fringe POV along the lines of "Syrian Kurdistan does not exist and Kurdistan has never existed, not ever, and is not used by a preponderance of RS". One only needs to read a bit, it repeats after a while and rapidly becomes clear how the page dynamics have evolved over the past half-year or so. GPinkerton (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    GPinkerton, what I see from a skim of some of the later sections is a rambling, uncivil discussion, all parties being exceedingly snarky, with some of them crossing the line into blatant personal attacks. There is a lot of heat, but very little light for someone like me who knows very little about the subject matter, and who is unfamiliar with any of the sources under discussion - if you are calling for editors to be topic banned, you are more likely to gain traction if you are specific about who, and why.
    I will say this though: Attar-Aram syria, your comments about using Arab nationalists if Mehrdad Izady is used aren't appropriate - that approach leads to false balance. It is important to use the best sources available, and to discuss competing viewpoints where they exist, but we don't attempt to 'balance' articles in the way that you suggest. Per WP:GEVAL, we should be aiming to identify and use the best mainstream sources that cover a topic, not seeking out sources because we know that they favour one position or another. GirthSummit (blether) 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you Girth Summit. That rhetoric of mine came as a result of knowing whom I am daeling with, after participating in that talk page for a while (note, I have not add a single word to the article itself). So it was just an empty threat, which I will retract. I would like you to note that I presented three academic sources questioning Izady, and the other user responded with the word: none-sense.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Attar-Aram syria, thank you for withdrawing that suggestion - you might want to go and strike it on the article talk page as well to make that clear. Without wanting to get into the content dispute itself, I'd make the general observation that finding some academic sources that generally question or criticise a scholar's work is not sufficient to demonstrate that the scholar's work is unreliable for our purposes (it would be unusual for a scholar to have received no criticism in their lifetime). What you need are reviews or citations criticising the specific parts of the scholar's work that are being used to support assertions in our articles. Again, this is a general comment - I haven't reviewed that part of the discussion in depth, so I don't know whether or not that is what you have done. GirthSummit (blether) 14:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Ofcourse, and the sources I brought deals exactly with the book of Izady that is being cited. He is not a normal scholar, but a Kurdish nationalist, so it is inappropriate to use him for Kurdish topics without qualification.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Girth Summit, the main problem at the "Syrian Kurdistan" article are mainly two editors, Konli17 and GPinkerton, the first one is pov pushing a kurdish nationalistic agenda, falsifying history and adding fake maps he has made in MS paint:[2][3], he has edit warred to get these fake maps with unreliable sources into the article: [4], the other problematic editor is GPinkerton, shes strongly pushing a nationalistic kurdish agenda falsifying history and reality. GPinkerton claimed that Syrian "Kurdistan" existed during the French Mandate in Syria, she had added this into the article, I asked GPinkerton on the talkpage to please show me a historical source from the 1920s talking about a Syrian Kurdistan[5] and she dismissed my comment with: "What you imagine to be possible or otherwise is of decreasingly little interest to me and betrays an increasingly wide estrangement from reality on your part. It certainly has no bearing on the content of the article." she refuses to engage in a cooperative discussion, the truth doesn't matter to her. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    Supreme Deliciousness, as I said, I see snarky commentary from just about everyone on that thread. The part you have quoted is far from the worst of it, unfortunately. Why do you say that Konli17 created that map themselves? From what I can see, it was uploaded by a commons editor called Ferhates - are you saying that they are the same person? It would be really helpful if everyone would be willing to tone down the rhetoric about each other here - actual evidence of malfeasance will speaker much louder than assertions about each others motivations. GirthSummit (blether) 15:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's difficult to tell whether this is a failure to understand the topic, a failure to control the scope of the article, or nationalist equivocation and sleight-of-hand. A "Climate and agriculture" section? Looks like the opposite of a POV fork, a POV amalgamation of Kurdistan, Kurds in Syria, and Kurdish nationalism. fiveby(zero) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • GPinkerton jumped into this article out of nowhere, and came with a very specific, aggressive POV-pushing agenda. Nobody is saying "Kurdistan has never existed" as they claimed above, don't put words in others' mouths! You have been trying hard to show that Kurds did live in Syria. Well, no one is arguing about that, and Syria has known two Kurdish presidents. However, Kurds have lived in Syria either in big cities (such as in Aleppo, Hama and Damascus), or in small village clusters in three non-contiguous areas along the northern border as a result of intensive migrations from Turkey encouraged by French mandate authorities, as shown by this French comprehensive work (among many others) on Jazira Province (modern day al-Hasakah Governorate). This is another French report also talking about the history of that area and how towns and village were built for the new refugees. This is why serious accounts refer to those areas by the name "kurdish inhabited areas" (see this CIA map). The main kurdish presence is in northeastern Syria, and they have lived there entirely mixed with the population, and have been a minority since they first started to cross into Syria from Turkey. This report by the highly-regarded International Crisis Group reads: The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province). Azmi Bishara and colleagues counted 17 such migrations and talk thoroughly about this issue and its origins (here is an English summary). I had inserted this cropped map from Mark Sykes in 1907, specific to the area Kurds call today Syrian Kurdistan", showing the distribution of Arab and Kurdish tribes in upper Mesopotamia with the train tracks separating Turkey (to the north) from Syria (to the south). Note that there were no Kurdish tribes south of the railway (i.e. in what later became Syria). GPinkerton decided to remove this map and inserted the full map (for an "unknown reason"). GPinkerton removed reference to one of the sources talking about invention of "Syrian kurdistan" while inserting documents talking about a "Syrian kurdistan". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the kind of incompetent comment that this editor has already repeatedly made. Note that the railway shown in the map is entirely conjectural and never existed and moreover note that this editor used a cropped version of the map because the uncropped version shows the words "Kurdish tribes" in all caps in territory now in modern Syria. Make if that what you will. The perverse insistence that everyone pick up the fringe attitude of Damascus and Ankara towards (perhaps also Saddam?) against the continued existence of Kurdish people on the grounds that (like both Syria and Turkey) they did not have a state in the 1920s. This denialism flies in the face of what reliable sources have called the region for a half century or more. Indeed the source quoted above details in depth the long history of the term "Syrian Kurdistan", in stark contradiction of the shrill and either disingenuous or ignorant claims by this editor that it had never been used before 2011, and was cooked up by the west to embarrass the Dear Leader. GPinkerton (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
In particular, the claim above that the Syrian part of Kurdistan was Kurdish-minority is a telling admission of yet another refusal to accept reality; all reliable sources attest that the three areas referred to as comprising Syrian Kurdistan were majority Kurdish at the time. The claim that they were all imported there by the French is just a silly lie and not borne out by even the most cursory look at the sources advanced in favour of this POV. Especially cute is the claim were should put "Syrian Kurdistan" in scare quotes, based on that one quote Amr like to strip of context and use as though it supports his position; there has to be some great irony in arguing an encyclopaedia should not be using the English language's 21st century common name and quoting in support of this argument an academic work in which the term appears innumerable times throughout. GPinkerton (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Amr's opposition to WP:COMMONNAME is relentless. Konli17 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Our problem in this article is that we have people with no prior knowledge or competence but certainly with a strong POV-pushing agenda editing here (see comment on Saddam, etc.). GPinkerton is claiming the Istanbul-Baghdad railway "is entirely conjectural and never existed". Well, this shows the amount of knowledge this user has/does not have. Here is an excerpt from the Franco-Turkish Treaty of Ankara (1921) describing the new border between Turkey and Syria[1] The frontier line shall start at a point to be selected on the Gulf of Alexandretta immediately to the south of the locality of Payas and will proceed generally towards Meidan-Ekbes (leaving the railway station and the locality to Syria); thence it will join the railway at the station of Choban-bey. Then it will follow the Baghdad Railway, of which the track as far as Nisibin will remain on Turkish territory; thence it will follow the old road between Nisibin and Jeziret-ibn-Omar where it... Again nobody is denying the existence of Kurds in Syria (or elsewhere), as Pinkerton falsefully claims above. Moreover, Pinkerton is falsifying facts (or has a serious map-reading problem) claiming the uncropped Sykes map described above shows "Kurdish tribes" in all caps in territory now in modern Syria". I am not sure which tribes they are referring to, probably DINAR KURDS and BARAZIEH KURDS, which are the only Kurdish tribes close to the border! Both tribes are in the Seruj (now Suruc) and Birecik area, which are now just north of the border (i.e. in Turkey). I just uploaded [Sykes demographic map of middle section of Syria-Turkey border. The town of Ras al-Ain is in Syria.jpg this section of the Sykes map] for better focus. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Once again, Amr's comments are implausible and betray POV pushing. In the real world, the border between Syria and Turkey actually runs through the words themselves approximating the position of "KIKIEH KURDS". In any case, the map has no relevance to the subject at hand, and was laughably mislabelled as having something to do with showing distribution of Kurdish tribes and as showing a railway line one the border's present location, a proposition false on both counts: the railway line existed only on this map, and it does not follow the border decided more than a decade after the map was drawn. In effect, Amr has produced a map showing a proposal to alter the route of an as yet unbuilt railway which was never built in the location the map describes becuase the propsoal was never enacted. It cannot be used to claim Kurds did not inhabit Syrian Kurdistan, and has no relevance to the article in question except to refute the claims Amr has made about it. GPinkerton (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


Supreme Deliciousness and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on Syrian Kurdistan[edit]

  • Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), having been sanctioned by ArbCom for infractions relating to nationality and ethnicity a decade ago, arrived at Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as soon as it appeared in 2015, adding an OR tag to the article [6]. But this (northern hemisphere) summer, the saga appears to begin for Supreme Deliciousness with removing [7] as "unreliable" the source of the entirely incontrovertible statement in the lead that Syrian Kurdistan consists of three non-contiguous areas of Kurdish inhabited territory on the Syria–Turkey border, presumably on the grounds that it was The Kurdish Project, a Kurdish-interest NGO of some kind.
  • Next, they remove [8] a source to an academic publication by the London School of Economics' Middle East Centre with the misleading edit summary "unreliable source".
  • Next they remove [9] a citation to Reuters on the grounds that "Reuters sources does not confirm that part of Syria is Kurdistan" even though the Reuters article states plainly: "Locals no longer call this region northeastern Syria, but “Rojava” - Western Kurdistan." They also add [10] a {POV} tag to the article. Not content, they then add [11] an Ottoman era map of the notional boundaries of late 18th century top-level administrative districts in the empire with the oh-so-decisive caption "1803 Cedid Atlas showing "Kurdistan" in blue on parts of modern day Iraq, Iran and Turkey. The atlas shows no part of Syria being part of a "Kurdistan"" and adds [12] an {according to whom} tag to the lead sentence. After this, they later remove this very Reuters [13] statement from the article on the clearly POV grounds that "This quote deserves no inclusion in an encyclopedia". Still unsatisfied, they added [14] {who} and {according to whom} on some weasel wording established by another to distance Wikivoice from the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" and added [15] scare quotes to all instances of the term in the article with a "so-called" prefix to make the POV extra clear, even more explicit in the succeeding edit, [16], which without explantaion or edit summary replaced the words "While many of the Kurds in Syria have been there for centuries, waves of Kurds fled their homes in Turkey and settled in Syrian Al-Jazira Province, where they were granted citizenship by the French Mandate authorities" with the rather more partisan "Waves of Kurds fled their homes in Turkey and settled in Syrian [[Al-Jazira Province]] ..." and thereby removing any reference to the centuries of pre-WWI habitation of Kurds in the areas subsequently known as the Syrian Kurdistan. They also removed [17] the remnants of the Reuters source, which they had mutilated in haste, showing the removal of the whole quote and its source were repeated and deliberate attempts to exclude the information.
  • They then added the first expansion of their own [18], a history section which acknowledges despite later claims to contrary, Kurds did indeed live in what is now Syrian Kurdistan before the partition of the Ottoman Empire, but which rather emphasizes the post-WWI ethnic changes, all the while referring to entire modern Syrian Al-Jazira province to stress that Kurds were a minority there, nicely leaving out the smaller administrative subdivisions where Kurds were in the majority (i.e. the three districts directly bordering the Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistans). There are good reasons to doubt that the all sources cited fully back the picture presented here, and the potential for deliberate omission seems high. They summarize these changes with the heartfelt "It is extremely important for the reader to see where the people that are advocating for so called "Syrian Kurdistan" to see where they come from, so please do not remove this very important information" and added [19] some further scare quotes and "so-called" prefixing, declaring "you can not present as a fact that an entity called "kurdistan" exists in Syria, you have to put in in quotes because it is imaginary and not real or factual. Please stop your pov pushing." This last was swiftly reverted [20] by Applodion who identified the POV pushing of Supreme Deliciousness in the edit summary.
  • Nevertheless, more POV editing [21] ensued, again minimizing the validity of the term, and next a whole sourced statement to a well-recognized academic expert was removed [22] as "POV statement, can not be presented as fact".
  • Later, Supreme Deliciousness re-added [23] some most irrelevant stuff apparently motivated to suggest 1.) Kurdish responsibility for the Turks' Armenian Genocide, and 2.) Kurdish non-nativeness in Syria. This was explained as "Very disrespectful of you to remove this important information about the history of northeastern Syria. This is important information directly related to the history of the region." They re-remove the phrasing [24] "Kurdish-inhabited areas were usually only regarded as "Kurdish regions of Syria" before the 1980s", with the rebuke that "I asked you on the talkpage to show me what states and international organizations recognize this pov and you failed to do so." They also added [25] scare quotes to "unification" and "Kurdistan", claiming that "quotes are needed to not present the claims as facts".
  • After an edit war, Supreme Deliciousness re-added [26] remotely related information about the Assyrian Genocide with the policy-free edit summary that there was "No consensus to remove" it. A bit more editorializing followed, changing the wording of sourced information [27]to remove mention of the Ba'ath Party, its policy of Arabization and of the Kurdish inhabitants the autocratic Party's forced migrations displaced.
  • Supreme Deliciousness re-added [28] their editorializing caption on the irrelevant map, despite it having been removed by Escape Orbit on the very reasonable grounds that it "What a map *doesn't* show, is original research and the opinion of the contributing editor. Therefore relevance it has to this article is equally POV". Supreme Deliciousness retorts that "Its not original research because it is an accurate description of the map."
    Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western KurdistanSubject of an edit war

    Kurdistan as suggested by the Treaty of Sèvres was located north of the Syrian border

    — captioned by Supreme Deliciousness
    The borders on this map are being given undue weight. The Kurdish areas shown are only the areas of cultural Kurdistan that Britain and France didn't themselves want and didn't think should be Armenian or wasn't already Iranian. The Treaty of Sèvres was never enacted in reality, and was motivated by imperial interests and considerations nothing to do with where Kurds might be located or entitled to inhabit. The map has place in the article but it appears to be being used as a sacred text to deny that there could ever be such a thing a Syrian Kurdistan (not shown but scattered immediately south of the anachronistic modern border of Syria and Turkey)
  • The next edit is a minor one, months later, when they add [29] {Request quotation} to a sourced statement stating Kurds have lived in the area since the Middle Ages. After that, Supreme Deliciousness removed [30] the words "Around 80% of Syrian Kurds live in Kurdish-majority regions along the Syria-Turkey border." on the grounds that this source was "unreliable". They then remove what they describe as a "fake map" [31] used on French Wikipedia and Kurdish Wikipedia and uploaded in 2013, followed by some POV changes [32] to the lead. They also restore the erstwhile removed map of the partition of the empire by the Treaty of Sèvres, along with its anachronistic caption, on the grounds that the map itself was "important historical map". Separately and in another context these actions might be commended, but together they evidence a cherry-picking of information and the desire to present one very particular side of this story to the exclusion of al others. With this edit [33], Supreme Deliciousness seeks to give greater prominence to the antique Cedid Atlas map, together with its misrepresentational caption of "Kurdistan in blue" (in fact neither blue area on the map is labelled as such, and for good reason; the 1803 Turkish copy of an earlier British atlas naturally does not show the short-lived Kurdistan Eyalet set up later that century and swiftly reabsorbed into the parent Diyarbakır Eyalet, and the blue is in fact the Mosul Eyalet and is marked as such.
  • The next edit was to restore the weasel wording [34] after it was again rightly removed, changing for example "Various areas have been claimed to be part of the Syrian part of Kurdistan" to "Various areas have been claimed to be part of an alleged "Syrian Kurdistan" entity" together with more scare quotes added [35], [36].
  • Next came a big reversion [37] of changes wholesale following others' edits with the confusing and ill-grounded summary "Restore version before disruptive forced edit warring without consensus". Supreme Deliciousness again removed [38] the source ''The Kurdish Project'', and though objections were raised to the edit summary of "See talkpage, "The Kurdish Project" is not a reliable source and is non-notable", Supreme Deliciousness failed to establish any rationale beyond the fact the organization does not claim to be a news agency and the fact it did not and still does not have a Wikipedia page of its own. This looks like Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of Supreme Deliciousness. They next removed [39] the same source they previously removed, again without explanation beyond the claim that " is not a reliable source". Again, this is nowhere explained or justified. The same story occurs next, with the removal [40] of attributed territorial claims. They then forced the lead back into their preferred version with the summary "restore lead changed without consensus". More deletions [41], this time without even a hint of exculpatory edit summary, followed.
  • Next, Supreme Deliciousness [42] again removes well-sourced material and less POV text in favour of their own textus receptus. After this I find some sources and expand the article.
  • Supreme Deliciousness, seeing this, decides to revert the entire thing, citing [43] "false terminology" in their edit summary: "See talkpage, this kind of false terminology can not be used in an encyclopedia," a really extraordinary response to sourced material to which I supplied citations and quotations, all of them, to a page, using the precise terminology "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Western Kurdistan". Still, Supreme Deliciousness appears to hold dear the unfounded belief that such terminology must not be used without scare quotes and without carefully minimizing the extent of usage (as if sources like the academia of the English-speaking world, the BBC, The Guardian, and Reuters didn't use it often and without qualification). Following the restoration of my material by others, Supreme Deliciousness [44] added an excessive number of labels to show their personal dissatisfaction that such terminology exists and is used in reliable sources, proclaiming that they were a "large amount of falsehoods and historical falsifications added into article".

Overall, I do not think this user's user's contributions to this article space have been an improvement, bar maybe one or two. Surely a net negative to the project? GPinkerton (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Complete ridiculous wall of text and misrepresentation of the diffs and my editing history. I'm not even gonna bother with a reply. If any admin is wondering about any specific edit I have made, then bring that diff forward and i will reply to that admin only. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I can only support GPinkerton on this. They must have invested quite some time in this edit, and an admin should take a look. I have invested quite some time, too by only finding out Supreme Deliciousness sees the territories liberated from ISIL by the Kurds as occupied by the Kurds, and maintains this view from January 2015 until November 2020. GPinkerton here has invested way more time.
P.S:With ISIL I mean the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the by far best known terror organization in the world.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If someone would like to look at this and take the appropriate action that'd be a great help. GPinkerton (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to take action against User:GPinkerton[edit]

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

Edit warring

  1. In 6 March 2020, they edit warred on Bulgaria during World War II: [45], [46], [47].
    • They were warned by the other party here (among other warnings).
  2. In 9 May 2020, they edit warred on Basilica: [48], [49], [50].
    • They were warned by the other party here.
    • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as no violation (of 3RR in particular). A warning was issued to respect BRD. See here.
  3. In 15-16 May 2020, they edit warred on Catholicity: [51], [52], [53] (manually).
    • They were warned by the other party here.
  4. In 28 June 2020, they were blocked for 48h for edit-warring on Vashti: [54], [55], [56] (manual), [57].
    • See the relevant report at WP:AN3 here.
    • They appealed the block twice, being declined once and accepted the other.
  5. In 24 July 2020, they edit warred on Hagia Sophia: [58], [59].
    • They were warned by the other party here and later by an admin here.
    • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as content dispute. The closing admin thought it qualifies for a block, if not confounded by other parties involved.
  6. In 28 July 2020, they edit warred on Mehmed the Conqueror: [60], [61].
    • They were informally warned by a third party here.
  7. In 26 September 2020, they edit warred on Constantine the Great and Christianity over which English spelling variety should be used: [62], [63].
    • They were informally warned by an admin here.
  8. In 19 November 2020, they were blocked again, this time for 24h, for edit warring on Murder of Samuel Paty: [64], [65], [66], [67].
    • The blocking admin sought consensus for the block in light of an appeal by GPinkerton. Consensus was granted unanimously.
  9. In 21 November 2020, they edit warred again on Murder of Samuel Paty: [68] and [69] (manual).

Ad hominem and harassment

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

@Cullen328: Gladly. Still, it should be fairly obvious that this report is motivated by the OP's desire to be rid of dissenting voices and his dissatisfaction with the progress of his RfC, and not by anything I have done that has not already been discussed aplenty long ago. I have also only taken up contributing much to editing this March or so. I've seen users that have been blocked annually or more for fifteen years running (or thereabouts) ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
If you don't understand what was wrong with what you just said, I'm afraid you're too inexperienced to be editing here (WP:CIR). --qedk (t c) 20:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, please expand on "gladly". I am very concerned that you chose to point out that other editors have been blocked more than you. If the implication is that it is acceptable for an editor to be blocked once a year, then let me disabuse you of that notion. It is unacceptable. Most productive editors have never been blocked, and I need you to explain your current understanding of edit warring and vandalism, in light of your recent blocks and the feedback on vandalism you received at AN. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I only mention that particular editor because I thought he might turn up to add his uninvited remarks. Below, you can see he did. I was blocked for engaging in an edit war begun by Debresser, who was himself blocked (nth time). Ever since, he has stalked and harassed my every turn, dragging his contrived grievances like a ball and chain and rattling it whenever he thinks someone will be inclined to listen to his hypocrisy. I urge action. The OP here appears to be pursuing the same warpath, likewise driven on by the flame of pious wrath having been crossed in a content dispute. To answer your question, yes I do get it, and yes I recognize that that my edits before were not reverting vandalism, only ill-sourced NPOV violations to be deleted by someone else. And no, I was no suggesting I thought it was a acceptable, though I think the idea pursued below is a rich seam of hypocrisy whose merits and motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves 🤣. GPinkerton (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, please be aware that any editor can comment on this noticeboard and nobody needs an invitation. Nobody can possibly force you to edit war. Comments like this do not help your cause, and neither do emojis. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Cullen328, I'm only pointing out that these editors' attacks on me are all hypocritical and motivated by a desire to win their own battles (in every case they're complaining about, consensus has turned against the affronted editors) and not by concern for Wikipedia policy or for improving the encyclopaedia. I have never suggested that I was forced to edit war. This report is all a stale set of grievances being used as a tactic win a content dispute against consensus. There is nothing new here. GPinkerton (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, the "attack and denounce the OP" tactic is not a good look for you. This discussion is about your behavior. Start a different thread with convincing diffs about the OP if you wish. Try self-reflection and a firm and explicit commit to avoid edit warring and false accusations of vandalism instead. That is far more likely to lead to a good outcome for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Cullen328 I am the OP really, this is just a pile on section (see above, and the most recent archive page). I have already explicitly committed to avoid edit warring and false accusations of vandalism, and I do so again. GPinkerton (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Permanent block[edit]

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

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

He has been on WP:AN3 a lot too:

  1. AN3 Archive 408
  2. AN3 Archive 411
  3. AN3 Archive 413
And another 4 reports he openend (1,2,3,4), which also clearly shows how bad he gets along with people.

He has been on WP:ANI too:

  1. ANI Archive 1047
  2. ANI Archive 1044
And another 3 reports he opened (1, 2, 3).

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

Speak of the devil and he shall appear, as they say. Funny, I just had you in mind when I was thinking of the longest block log from the most committed edit warrior I'd ever seen, and your previous relentless attempts to take vengeance against me for slandering you favourite biblical characters with neutral scholarship. Do you think this will be your lucky day? Your unwanted contributions has been noted as such on occasions before this one. Honestly, I think there are excellent grounds to permanently block Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). GPinkerton (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Debresser is a problem editor who should have been banned years ago. Doesn't change the fact that he's correct in this case. (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
If you are correct GPinkerton, then Debresser should be blocked as well, not instead of you. So all you did was give another example of incivility. El Millo (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Random passerby comment - X: "Y should be banned!" followed by Y: "No, X should be banned!" to begin a discussion is likely not going to lead to a good end. Interaction-ban and topic-ban them both, IMO. Zaathras (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I ran into this editor a while ago by chance, since we do not usually edit the same topics. The experience was highly unpleasant and left me with the clear impression that this person is not ready for community editing. Have not ran into them since, but their talkpage was still on my watchlist because of that incident. Debresser (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
See? Couldn't resist going out of his way to pursue a vendetta he has engineered for himself to pursue. And yes, banning Debresser is a fine suggestion. GPinkerton (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Debresser has listed ANI reports I made about vandalism which resulted in proper action against others, and is trying to claim this as grounds for his continued campaign to insert biblical literalism into Wikipedia being allowed to continue while my contributions are barred. This is really very silly and ironical. GPinkerton (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

  • Support per personal unpleasant experience with this editor and proven, long-term battleground mentality, resulting in the conclusion that this editor is not ready for community editing. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support for perma blocking GPinkerton from Wikipeida. The user has recently wreaked havoc at the Syrian kurdistan article introducing a large amount of nationalistic pov edits. The user refuses to engage in a cooperative manner at the talkpage.[70][71] There is no end in sight to this users disruptive behavior.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Editors should again note the POV pushing causing the issues here is in large part the responsibility of the editors above, who are quite desperate that their respective bias be reflected in Wikivoice. This has already been discussed to death by the tendentiousness of these editors. Spreeme Delciousness is avowedly determined to suppress NPOV in relation to the Kurds, and has explained their crusade a number of times. GPinkerton (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Do you mean "siteban"? –LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The user lacks the necessary civility to be able to cooperate and compromise. He resorts to insults and attacks and have a battleground mentality. I for once could not restrain myself and treated him as he treats others, then suggested that he show respect in order to get it back, for which he replied with: I have no need of what you imagine to be respect from yourself. This user is impossible to argue with, as for him, any editor that oppose him is full of nonesense and the only accepted arguments are his own. See these diffs where he calls every argument he does not like "non-sense", or reject it without any willingness to understand other parties' arguments: 1, 2, 3, here he outright reject to discuss despite being urged to!- In short, this editor, with his rude childish behaviour and battleground mentality is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Just read his replies to other users here in the compliant, and it will give you a clear image of how he goes around here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • This is another editor whose edits have only been to pursue the bizarre conspiracy theory that Syrian Kurdistan does not exist or should not be referred to as such in the encyclopaedia. It is hardly surprising that this editor, whom I have reported for tendentious editing, would seek to have me removed. GPinkerton (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have taken a look at the evidence presented and although there are certainly some behavioral problems and some CIR issues, I see nothing that would justify an indef block or a site ban at this point. Much of the case consists of heated content disputes which is not, by itself, actionable. Things like "Can you read?" in an edit summary qualify as mild incivility but certainly not harassment. Some other diffs indicate more substantial episodic incivility but not harassment. Of the three ANI threads opens regarding GPinkerton, one [72] was quickly closed as "No violation". The third [73] was closed as "Content dispute, no action". The second, filed by Debresser on June 27, 2020, [74] was closed as 48 hour blocks for both parties. IMO, Debresser's participation in this thread and his presenting of evidence above has already poisoned the well in this discussion. His own behaviour appears to be at least as problematic in these disputes and his block record is much much longer, plus there is a pile of Arbcom restrictions on top of that. If there are any indef blocks to be handed out as a result of this thread, I think it would have to be to both of them, but I don't believe that's a good idea. ANI is a poor venue for handlinging entrenched POV disputes of this kind, they belong at ARBCOM and that's where the parties should be dirtected. We might consider a two-way interaction ban between GPinkerton and Debresser. Some of the other participants in this discussion so far appear to be deeply involved in the said content disputes themselves, and to have POV agendas of their own. E.g. the first thing one sees at the talk page of Supreme Deliciousness is them strengously arguing that West Jerusalem is not located in Israel, User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2020/October#West Jerusalem. Enough said. Nsk92 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC).
Looking a little closer at some of the diffs provided by the OP under 'Edit warring', diff number 1 [75] for Bulgaria during World War II appears to be an effort by GPinkerton to clean up language that had been white-washing the level of complicity of the WWII Bulgarian government in the persecution of Bulrarian Jews at the behest of the Nazis. While edit warring is never a good idea, I have much less sympathy for anything that has even a slightest whiff of Holocaust denial. Seeing these diffs being used as exhibit A in this report reduces the credibility of the report in my eyes quite a bit. As I said above, if the parties really want to pursue this matter further, they should file an Arbcom case and duke it out there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
FYI that article, Bulgaria during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), before move I performed, had the title Military history of Bulgaria during World War II, which was used a vehicle for exactly what Nsk92 suggests. GPinkerton (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) The page The Holocaust in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), until I rewrote nearly all of it and initiated a move discussion with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, gloried under the extraordinary title Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews. Between the two pages, there was no mention of Bulgaria's involvement beyond "the Nazis made the tsar do it". GPinkerton (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nsk92: Just for the record, the sequence of events given above is a plain timeline, meaning that the order of their display shall imply no priority for their significance. To think of the first event as exhibit A in spite of the dates being shown is less a consequence of logic, I'm afraid, than empathy. I'd still appreciate that for the sensitive nature of the topic, but I don't think such emotional bias should ordain admins judgments of adherence to policy. Long story short, I believe we should make sure we aren't withstanding dangerous POV pushing with POV pushing of yet another sort. Guardians of content in a specific area can wreak havoc on other topics. As is well-known, Wikipedia is meant to contain all human knowledge. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It should be noted Supreme Deliciousness was at ArbCom 10 years ago, being given a topic ban for national/ethnic disruption to the encyclopaedia's coverage of middle east. Presumably, they have been at it the whole duration of the Syrian Civil War. GPinkerton (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Ha ha. Funny how user Konli17 can accuse others of being nationalists. Look at their user page! This user (Konli17) currently has FOUR WP:ANEW cases against them: here, here, here andhere, edit-warring alongside GPinkerton. This is a great timely reminder to admins to look into Konli17's edit-warring behavior and close these cases. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment User: Assem Khidhr edit warred on Murder of Samuel Paty. (the schoolteacher beheaded for teaching his classes the classes on free expression a history of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as required by the national curriculum. He repeatedly sought to change the text to his preferred version, here, here again, and here again. I was blocked for 24 hours ... GPinkerton (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This user has aggressive battleground attitude, and i don't see if he will calm down.Shadow4dark (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef but GPinkerton, I suggest you take very seriously the comments about incivility, edit warring, and learning to recognize vandalism that you've received here and other recent threads. Stop commenting on other editors' motivations. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Nsk92. I understand the frustration, and hope the involved editors will take a little break long enough to regain their proper editing composure. The advice given here is definitely good food for thought. Atsme 💬 📧 14:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nsk92. There's a whole lot of garbage behaviour in these subjects, and frankly, many of the editors commenting in support are themselves well on the way to blocks and topic bans for their own poor behaviour. On Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty alone there are two active RfCs concerning article content that many editors can't stop edit-warring over anyway; I'm considering full-protecting that article until the discussions conclude, or just handing everyone a limited partial block to deal with it. Broadly, I don't think any of this cesspool will be properly addressed without a full Arbcom case and investigation. I'm not impressed that Assem Khidhr quoted me at least twice out of context, both times that I see twisting my words to fit their narrative, and didn't think it would be worthwhile to notify me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    That having been said; @GPinkerton: your next ad hominem will be your last. Stop. Now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    GPinkerton: I strongly suggest that you step back from this entire thread for a while. You do have the right to defend yourself but the basic facts have already been brought out, and at this point some of your comments here are doing you more harm than good. Better let the discussion proceed at its own pace and have more uninvolved editors comment here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Ivanvector: I'll make that clear. My understanding was that directly pinging an admin who was more likely to approve of one's proposal would be understood as pushy. In case you noticed, I also refrained from mentioning any other editor I quoted. I actually thought this would be understood as more professional, until your comment here. As for context, your first remark was relevant because you were almost the only admin to raise the concern I was bringing here: failing to understand a core policy, such as that of vandalism, is too dangerous that it deserves a block until otherwise is proven. Since your comment was split into two edits, I chose to link the second so that the first would thereby also show as prev, not to take anything out of context. I was also keen on addressing the entirety of it by the paraphrase until they show understanding and retract their remarks, lest it be understood that you're calling for a block whatsoever. Apropos of the 2nd quote, you being the closing admin, the comment you left post-closure was at the centre of the thread. I paraphrased it as explained below. Finally, I don't think I'd be having any extra energy and time to go for ArbCom. I'll merely withdraw from contributing side-by-side with GPinkerton, hoping that what I've proposed here will be enough both to alert the community and to urge GPinkerton to cease. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment What's a "permanent block"? The only thing that can really be called that are certain WMF bans which cannot be appealed. (AFAIK, the WMF doesn't specifically say what results in such an unappealable ban but it's probably mostly child protection reasons.) If someone wanted such ban, they would need to speak to the WMF. We could do an indefinite community site ban here. But indefinite is not supposed to mean permanent. While it's hard to imagine some long term socks who have cause untold disruption coming back, if they stop and 10 years down the track they make a very good appeal, perhaps they'll be allowed back. In any case, if we're discussing implementing the ban here it's unlikely it's reached that level. More likely it's a regular community indef site ban. Such site bans often can be successfully appealed in 6 months to 1 year. If it's just an admin indefinite block and doesn't involve any socking there may not even be a minimum appeal period although it would depend on what happened before and the chances an admin can be convinced the editor will change. This isn't just an aside since when making proposals, it helps if you have some understanding of community norms since otherwise people like me think the evidence isn't worth looking at. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nil Einne: Please note that the editor who opened this subsection is different from the OP, which is me. I actually didn't even vote here. Yet, while I don't approve of its content, moving it to another section by me would very likely be interpreted as aggressive. Deleting it altogether would be even disruptive. It's readers' responsibility, I believe, to resolve the ambiguity. It takes a look at the signatures. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • @Assem Khidhr: I don't understand your point. Although I'm sometimes careless with the word OP to mean the OP of a subthread or even unmarked subdiscussion, I don't see where I said anything about OP or original poster in my comment above. And as far as I can tell, User:Debresser is the one who use term "permanent block" and also who made the proposal I'm commenting on namely to "permanently blocked" GPinkerton [76] because "Gpinkerton has been involved in conflicts almost every month" and "He has been on WP:AN3 a lot" etc with only a passing mention of "the report" under which they started this proposal. There are a bunch of other sub discussions here including the original starting thread by you where you suggested action without suggesting any specific action since you weren't sure what (which is fine). I make no comment on them. It seems to be the quicker we dismiss this nonsense proposal, the better we can deal with whatever other issues may or may not exist. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
        • @Nil Einne: I thought it was the evidence I put forth that you believe isn't worth looking at, as if it was being scapegoated for this subsection. Pardon me then. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose a permanent block, because GPinkerton has made many valuable contributions to wikipedia. But GPinkerton should be given a warning of a topic ban on "Muslims and controversy" if they continue their behavior. Consider:
  • At WP:RSN, GPinkerton questioned the reliability of widely published academics, in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim"[77] or "true-believers"[78]. An academic's religion (or race, gender etc) must never be a factor in their WP:Reliability, period.
  • At Talk:Hagia_Sophia/Archive_5#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_4_August_2020, GPinkerton pushed a ridiculous and false anti-Muslim story (Drmies described it as "anti-Muslim propaganda") and edit-warred to have it inserted into the article (warning against said edit-warring).
  • At Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty GPinkerton pushed, what WhinyTheYounger called, the idea that "Islam is incompatible with free expression", refusing to recognize that is both possible to be a moderate Muslim who condemns the murder but also condemns the publication of the cartoons.
  • Anytime GPinkerton disagrees with someone, they make allegations of extremism. When GPinkerton edit warred against three users, they accused their opponents of a "campaign to enforce blasphemy law on Wikipedia"[79]. Later they accused Assem Khidhr of being an "anti-blasphemy ringleader"[80]. This creates a toxic atmosphere for Muslim Wikipedians.VR talk 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The first point of this is absurd. The story is a well-known cultural myth, and at this point it is really very silly that even though the material exists throughout Wikipedia, Vice regent has argued that it should not appear on the article that deals with the building in which it is set and which is a crucial part of the well-known trope. Oddly, Vice regent also tried hard to force a phraseology that emphasized the wrongs of the 4th Crusade in looting the building than the Turks, even though the same school-age history (without fotnotes) suggested by him as the source also states that Mehmed the Conqueror personally destroyed the altar, a legend Vice regent mysteriously never sought to include in Wikivoice. I pointed this out on the talkpage and Vice regent abandoned the dialogue. Drmies was in point of fact wrong to describe the tale, which was accepted as fact by everyone in the West from 1453 to Voltaire, as anti-Muslim rather than anti-Turk since the ideological purpose of the story is to complete the legends surrounding the origin of the Turks in Greek folklore and the fulfilment of prophecies originating in the 7th-century Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, which itself is predicated on seeing the predicted fall of Constantinople as an event at the end of time in which the Muslim armies (understood as deviant Christians) are the agency of God's destruction of worldly things. The first part of this is explained in the article. Wikipedia is not censored, and nether should the history of the middle ages be bowdlerized because of the feelings of people might be offended at non-events centuries ago. Vice regent is wrong to imply that I presented the information as true; the wording I used stressed the attribution to introduced, Wikilinked medieval people and chroniclers and unambiguously stated they were apocryphal. Vice regent you should amend your comment on this matter. GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The second point is also unfounded. Vice regent is wrong to suggest WhinyTheYounger was right to characterize my arguments in this way. I never mentioned Islam, or Muslims, until I replied to this very allegation. Vice regent and WhinyTheYounger confouded Islam and Islamism, an illiberal political ideology rooted in theocracy which wholly different from any religion itself.
  • The third point is just exaggeration and misrepresentation and again confuses Islamist ideology with Muslims. Can you find any articles involving discussions which do not deal with terrorist attacks motivated by Islamist doctrine on blasphemy law which show any evidence of such a claim? Seeking to kill because of cartoon images is ipso facto extremist, and is seeking to ban images on the grounds of blasphemy is ipso facto extreme and in dire contravention of the concept of human rights. This cannot be gainsaid. GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose After I engaged in a lengthy back-and- forth with GPinkerton, the editor has committed to avoiding edit warring and false accusations of vandalism. The editor should be warned against personal attacks and sweeping generalizations problematic editing about Islam, and should continue editing with a less vehement and dogmatic tone, embracing the letter and the spirit of the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I have struck through "sweeping generalizations" at the request of GPinkerton here and in discussion on my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328: Thank you for your comment but please amend it; I have never made sweeping generalizations about Islam; that's not true at all. Islamism≠Islam and Islamists≠Muslims and I have never suggested otherwise. GPinkerton (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, who is a trusted editor and who is not a Muslim, concluded that you were engaging in "anti-Muslim propaganda" at Hagia Sophia, so I will not amend that part of my comment. The amendment that I will make is to say that you should also be warned against tendentious editing including bludgeoning and posting endless walls of text. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328: Drmies did not say I was engaging in "anti-Muslim propaganda", they said that story is anti-Muslim propaganda, which is a statement about a medieval legend I have nowhere presented as fact. GPinkerton (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • NED! I continue to argue that the well-known legend, which was repeated by everyone in Renaissance Europe by everyone from the pope on down, deserves discussion in the article. It is treated of elsewhere in Wikipedia and "anti-Muslims" have nothing to do with it. I repeat further that I never once gave even the slightest suggestion the story was anything other than false. The two sackings of Hagia Sophia are massive events in cultural history and to pass over the impact that one of them while of treating the other in depth is weird and imbalanced. The lurid details are an inevitable part of the Renaissance need to see the event as a mirror of the fall of Troy. How not to include the story may be seen at articles where it has considerably less relevance: the Fall of Constantinople and Constantinople articles. In neither case is it attributed to mediaeval people, as in the text I used, and in neither instance are the internally contradictory and mythic elements described or explained as was done in the text I proposed. I am not going to reveal my position on religion and I am not going to describe myself as a subject matter expert on Islam, even though my second postgraduate degree is in Islamic studies from a world-leading university and have a much greater understanding than many other Muslims, but I am not going to accept labelling as "anti-Muslim", that's just not possible. I realize I've said a lot on this thread but this point really must be stressed and brought home. GPinkerton (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose siteban, support warning - for reasons explained by others above. It's not a siteban-level problem, but the concerns raised here are real, and the problematic conduct should not be repeated. Lev¡vich 17:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have recently seen GPinkerton do some useful stuff, and in fact I was wondering why I remembered their name: August seems like years ago. But when I look over that discussion again, at Talk:Hagia Sophia/Archive 5, yeah--if that is how GPinkerton operates, that's severely disruptive. It may have started here. Note "apocryphal" where the unimpeachable secondary source says false (and here--look for "propaganda", "entirely spurious"). Read the archived talk page discussion again, if you like, and you will see denialism and editorial interpretation to pursue a POV of sorts in all its glory. And GPinkerton makes just really elementary mistakes: a story is told with some fabricated details added to it, and other writers repeat it--and somehow that makes them independent witnesses, it seems. What you will also see is bludgeoning: who wants to get involved in a discussion with that editor?

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

  • I again strongly deny this allegation and repeat once more that to speak of me being "anti-Muslim" is a clear oxymoron which I ask Drmies to retract. In addition, I can only point out again that I never once made any suggestion that it was true and have explained this before and repeatedly. The story is at present repeated as though true at Fall of Constantinople, a fact I have nothing to do with, and the way I described it has never even suggested that it was true, a fact I pointed out at the time. I have not once suggested for moment anything like the claim that different textual witnesses suggest multiple eyewitness accounts, and it's not fair to suggest otherwise Drmies. I tried to point this out at the time and expressed a desire that better wording could be worked on, but my appeals went unheeded. GPinkerton (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Here, and on my own talk page, GPinkerton claims I'm calling them "anti-Muslim". You all can see I said no such thing. I believe they have a POV which is an impediment to neutral editing, yes, but I have not accused them of being a Muslim hater or whatever. I do not understand why, in a discussion that may well lead to sanctions, they continue to be so ... well, what is it? Belligerent? Careless? Unencyclopedic and uncollegial, that certainly. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Having looked a bit into the Syrian/Kurdistan articles this week, where there is currently a great deal of feuding going on, I can't help but notice that some Support & Oppose votes here are falling into sides I see edit warring on articles. I hope this decision as serious as a siteban would not be overly influenced by editors active in disputes in this subject area. This is a decision that should be evaluated by uninvolved editors and admins. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    • My feelings exactly. My impression is that if we are talking about POV related topic bans, several other participants in this discussion deserve them at least as much as GPinkerton. I can't support a topic ban for GPinkerton in this situation, where his accusers escape similar scruitiny and are allowed to sit in judgement over GPinkerton here. IMO, POV related topic bans require careful and slow examination of evidence by uninvolved editors. ANI is completely unsuited for that purpose. If there isn't an active Arbitration case with Discretionary Sanctions in place for which an AE request can be made, then a new WP:ARC request should be filed and any relevant topic bans should be handed out there. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose siteban I've had sharp disagreements with GPinkerton, who can certainly be very rude, acerbic & agressive. I notice most of the diffs at the top come from May or earlier, & I think he has calmed down somewhat. Some of the editors complaining the loudest are in no position to cast stones. At the same time he can be a useful & energetic force for improving WP. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, per Konli17 and Nsk92. - Daveout(talk) 02:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, the user has serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues and persistently edits disruptively. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Another editor from the Syrian Kurdistan dispute. GPinkerton (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, valuable contributor who upholds NPOV in multiple contentious topic areas. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Stong Support Indef block. I hate to say this, but this user is not here to contribute positively, collaborate or debate in a civilized way. Even worse, they have a confrontational mentality powered by an aggressive behavior and personal attacks. Out of nowhere and with no prior encounter anywhere, this user opened a case against me simply for disagreeing on topics. Well, that might not sound too bad per se, but the problem is that this user reverts to personal attacks and rude wording when their argument fails. I am quoting some of their personal attacks in the one thread they opened against me:
  • Any look at any of the works will show that the editor's POV is divorced from the real world, and is apparently vocally, partisan as regards the al-Assad regime and its opponents. 02:59, 11 November 2020 (side note: I am really offended by this accusation. In my 10 years here I never edited in favor of Assad, and I challenge Pinkerton to show one single piece of evidence to support their baseless claim).
  • Rank hypocrisy. I've expanded with quotes since you're too unwilling to lift a finger to pull the wool from your own eyes and read a book. 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Can you read? Or do you only spew? 08:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The idea the idea it didn't exist before 2011 is as laughable as the editor's understanding of epistemology 08:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

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

  • Strong Oppose can't believe a user even has the idea of a block for GPinkerton. He has a sharp tone in discussions but is a rather experienced editor. At Syrian Kurdistan at least better than me where GP (I'm thinking of a Grand Prix for GPinkerton) argued with multiple academic sources for an existence of Syrian Kurdistan, while Amr Ibn and Supreme Deliciousness clinged to a book review of a no-name Phd candidate as a source for a denial of Syrian KurdistanParadise Chronicle (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Here we have an case of actual ideological opponents clamoring for someone to be sitebanned based on their POV, and that they view the editor as obstructive due to their opposition. This isn't in the usual way that we casually throw around the term "ideological opponents", and I don't say this lightly. While it should be fully acknowledged that there are real issues with GPinkerton's editing, especially in terms of their combativeness, hopefully they can take advice on board, and possibly change that. But I echo the statement of Konli17, that they have been "more sinned against than sinning". This issue is largely more about assorted editors with strong nationalist sentiments invested in this issue, and an entrenched view regarding ethnicity and national identity in the region. For Supreme Deliciousness to say that this is a case of "Kurdish Nationalists" pushing a POV is absurd, and indicative of what I'm talking about. I'll also note that other editors have given to calling good-faith edits "vandalism" in their edit summaries when reverting. Drama aside, this is not a controversial term outside of internal Middle-Eastern politics, where fears of a nascent Kurdish irredentism is a persistent bogeyman. GPinkerton has been trying to maintain what I think is a consistent NPOV in an embattled environment, and has skirted the line of problematic editing, but I think this is more calling out fire in a crowded room, when there's just a few smouldering coals. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment Note that I've had to repost this due to the formatting issues here. And if it wasn't clear, I'm primarily talking about the edits in Syrian Kurdistan. Their exchange with Drmies is unnecessarily combative, and a mischaracterization. I have no opinion on Vice regent's suggestion of a topic ban on Islam-related articles at this time, as I'm not sure that POV editing is a persistent, intransigent issue in that topic area. That's a very broad topic, even if it were narrowly construed, and I certainly don't think this is likewise an issue in every subject that they edit, calling for a siteban. But they could do with a formal warning for their behaviour, generally. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment What strikes me the hardest is how the attention of both admins and users simply shifted into a peripheral comment, albeit significantly less organized and poorly structured, only because it can be tackled in the form of a simply binary survey rather than a nuanced discussion. This is probably a stark example of WP:STRAW. It also shows, unluckily, how much tolerance is left in the community for topics deemed as potential flame wars and how many presumptions are in place about editors still interested therein. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Response to GPinkerton[edit]

I wrote this in response to GPinkerton comment above:

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

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

@GPinkerton: I'm truly glad you finally started quoting diffs, though you didn't even bother to put them in a chronological order and only presented them after a plethora of ad hominem claims. Here's a comprehensive timeline of what happened at Murder of Samuel Paty leading me to take notice of GPinkerton's behavior and leading to their temporary blocking:
  1. 16:23, 10 November 2020 GPinkerton introduces the statement Protests were held in X against Macron's defence of human rights. (X being Syria, Iraq, and Libya) in the article for the 1st time.
  2. 05:06, 18 November 2020 I came across the vague statement. Being WP:BOLD, I tried to reword the reporting of the protests in Syria section with WP:ATTRIBUTION to Macron.
  3. 05:33, 18 November 2020‎ I noticed the same statement verbatim in Lybia and Iraq sections. I did the same replacement, gave rationale, and omitted attrbution for redundancy. (notice that the two edits were consecutive without any intervening edits by another user).
  4. 06:52, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton reverts my edit.
  5. 07:07, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton further deletes the attribution to Macron, qualifying it as editorializing.
  6. 07:10, 18 November 2020 Proceeding in BRD, I reverted GPinkerton, citing in my summary The Guardian's article with an exact wording (my 1st revert).
  7. 07:10-07:36, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton makes a series of edits elsewhere in the article: [81], [82], [83].
  8. 05:44, 19 November 2020‎ Almost 24h later, GPinkerton reinstates the same statement witout any discussion.
  9. 08:32, 19 November 2020 Moved by the absence of WP:REVEXP and BRD WP:STONEWALLING, I further reverted GPinkerton again while alluding to the manipulation of WP:3RR as per WP:SPADE (my 2nd revert). This was indeed a violation of the exemplary 1RR.
  10. 08:54, 19 November 2020 GPinkerton reverts again.
  11. 09:11, 19 November 2020 Further proceeding in BRD, I started a discussion 17 mins after their 2nd revert. I declared my intent to withdraw from any further reverts.
  12. 09:14-09:51, 19 November 2020 Another editor tries to wP:HANDLE here. They were reverted by GPinkerton here.
  13. 09:58-10:46, 19 November 2020 Yet another editor opposes GPinkerton in [84], [85], and [86], only to be reverted by GPinkerton in [87], [88], [89], [90]. This user was warned of edit warring by the blocking admin here, for which they apologized here.
  14. 11:07, 19 November 2020 GPinkerton is blocked for 24h for edit warring, as shown previously.
Knowing that I'm not much well-known in the community here yet, unlike GPinkerton, who was actually praised by some admins in the AN thread I mentioned before, I'd also like to mention a piece of data in refutation of the endless disparaging remarks they made. Although I shouldn't be in a position to defend myself, I do think that such fervent demagogic attacks with an overwhelming amount of proofs by assertion can end up leaving some implicit associations. I firstly encourage anyone to browse through my edit history. I'm a Muslim Egyptian/Sudanese pharmacist who is interested in social sciences. I wander through the project trying to utilize my more or less diverse background to give back to the encyclopedia. In fact, Murder of Samuel Paty was the first and only flame war article that I involved with. However, please note that in contradiction to the claims of campaigning and lobbying:
  • My authorship of Murder of Samuel Paty is only 0.1% vs. a gigantic first-ranked 29.8% for GPinkerton (evidence here).
  • I first edited Murder of Samuel Paty in 22:13, 23 October 2020 (See here) vs. 02:56, 10 November 2020 for GPinkerton (See here). I stayed longer yet added way less.
Finally, here is a comment about my attitude on the page from a disinterested user whom I've never contacted and who never engaged in relevant disputes previously and just came for the RfC. Thanks. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Assem Khidhr: Saying you have taken less action to improve the page than an editor you are trying to have excluded from editing seems like an odd perspective to me. As I've said, Khidhr is here arguing I should be blocked twice for the same edit war in which he himself violated 3RR. As point of fact, your claim that I was in contravention of policy by reverting your unsolicited comments on my talk page are incorrect, and I am under no obligation either to reply or to retain your remarks where you put them. GPinkerton (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
A further consideration is that the protesting extremists, some of whom are now in jail for glorifying terrorism, are protesting about the implicit refusal of the French head of state to throw out his country constitutional freedoms and pander to their demands for Paty's head. They are not riled up that Macron said as much, but more about the fact it was victim that got the legion d'honneur and not, as they would see it, his martyred murderer. Trying to pin the blame for Paty's killing on Macron is what Anzarov did in his martyrdom video, but we should not be crediting his perspective. Note that all the sources say the protests were directed at France with a boycott of French things imposed in some areas. The protests reflect the status of free speech in a democracy an its incompatibility with the concept of blasphemy law, not anything Macron has done to bring about this century-long constitutional situation. In any case these arguments do not benefit from rehearsal here, as they have already been considered and dealt with appropriately. GPinkerton (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Debresser interaction ban[edit]

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

  • Comment @Ivanvector: this is actually the third time Debresser has advanced this line of attack, once before on this noticeboard and once on my talkpage recently. GPinkerton (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Ivanvector's justification. As I understand it, the proposed ban is a one-way interaction ban; this point probably deserves to be made more explicit. Nsk92 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    I thought it was clear but yes, that's correct. Edited to be specific. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support one-way. I'd oppose making it two-way, as this is clearly Debresser following GPinkerton around trying to bait him, not a two-way street. ‑ Iridescent 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I proposed a permanent block here for GPinkerton now, because at an earlier date admins, like Ivanvector, were not yet ready to see the underlying problematic attitude of GPinkerton. It seems that admins already see what I meant then. That justifies my post. If one were not allowed to ask for sanctions against a longtime problematic editor, then Wikipedia is really in trouble! Ergo, I strongly oppose an interaction ban based for this reasoning. There is no need for an interaction ban on other pages, since we don't as a rule edit the same articles. As stated above by Cullen238,[91] forums like WP:ANI are not restricted to admins, and anybody can post here, and Ivanvector's claim that I posted here "just to cause trouble" is a bad faith assumption. To the contrary, I posted here to try and make Wikipedia a better place. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen the same almost spammy comment twice for now. On a side note, @Ivanvector:, my link above still works for me, as of now. Also, I did interpret and deliberately addressed what you mentioned in your comment by confounded by other parties involved. To reiterate, by "involved", I meant all the editors who were involved in the AN report, not only those who engaged in the edit war. Idk whether you read this part, but I'm honestly shocked you thought of it as a twist. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - don't punish editors for raising valid concerns. Lev¡vich 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Levivich that this isn't the appropriate time for a boomerang. Debresser was correct in bringing this to the community in light of the behavioral issues and was filing a sensible and legitimate case. This iban proposal is redirecting the thread from the real problem at hand to unrelated and less significant matters. Krow750 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose While an editor should not follow another everywhere, there is a deep root for these reports against GPinkerton: his incivility. This is what should be addressed. This isnt really about the content disputes, but the provocation and impoliteness of GPinkerton, who have no understanding of the meaning of discussion, civility, or cooperation and compromise. This is stressful for other editors, and this should be handled, and thats why Im against this ban, because Debresser brought to light examples of the toxic behaviour of GPinkerton, whom Im sure will respond to my comment in his typical rude way full of accusations and intentions interpretations, while never understanding that its his rudeness, battleground mentality, pushiness, and lack of understanding of whatever goes against what he is convinced in, are whats getting him here. If he is not forced to respect other users, he will be back here over and over again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - wouldn't wish that on my worst detractor. Admins have tools to stop HOUNDING - don't need no iBans. Atsme 💬 📧 15:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. GPinkerton is the one who needs to be blocked here, not Debresser. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see why this is necessary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suggest that a previously unvolved editor close this thread now. It seems clear, at least to me, that none of the proposals put forward are going to generate consesus. I think the discussion is well past the point of yielding anything constructive. I still think that the disputes raised here are best suited for Arbcorm and for WP:AE. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support no sign of improvement yet. GPinkerton (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
That would be mutual. Just that you are nominated for a sitewide block, and I for an interaction ban with that same editor, who is nominated for a sidewide block. See the difference? Debresser (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support (would support a one way interaction ban, i.e. Debresser disallowed to interact with GPinkerton, too): Debresser's recent behaviour w.r.t. the New Schubert Edition article, including edit-warring and retaliation, makes me doubt whether they are here to build an encyclopedia. The evidence of their failing (to put it mildly) behaviour towards GPinkerton is clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
This is just an attempt at revenge for me calling you out on your WP:OWN issues at that page. Low. very low. Even for somebody from the Low Countries. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Close with warning[edit]

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

  • Support As per Levivich's reasoning on getting a consensus, and Cullen in moving on. I would add that Levivich's wording should be amended to 'will' as opposed to 'may'. Any content issues that User:GPinkerton may have, or any narrow but valid points in their arguments on content that they may make, should be made within the boundaries of WP:editwar and WP:civility. Simon Adler (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    <pedantic wonk mode>The problem with "will" is that because we're all volunteers, we cannot require an admin to issue a block. The most we can do is agree that if there are future violations, an admin has consensus to block without further warning, should an admin volunteer to do so at that time.</pedantic wonk mode> Levivich harass/hound 05:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, <pedantic wonk advice> duly taken. Simon Adler (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Such was already the conclusion of the #Permanent_block section above, so no need to propose this separately. For the record, I think this is a mistake, and that we will yet have grief from this editor. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I hope he will learn how to discuss with respect, discuss sources and arguments not persons and intentions, and to stop putting other point of views down instead of trying to understand and argue in a civil way. Hopefully he ditch the childish teen manners (unless he is a teen...) My hope is weak though.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was repeatedly called a Islamophobe and also after a final warning the editor wasn't blocked initially but only after my insistence. This (as to me) is way worse than asking one if he can read or speaks English as first language. Then, I also have faced heavier edit warring than this so called edit war here. Mine goes on since May, and there is no action taken even though the opposing editor refuses to answer at the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose closing with no action; we clearly need to do something here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

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

While people here have been discussing user Gpinkerton behavior, that user was continuing their rude, uncivil personal attacks elsewhere. Here are some examples: here, here, here on top of their previous attacks. This shows there is no cure for their addiction to this aggressive behavior and they don't belong in an encyclopedia. I hope a strong action will not delay any further. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
All of that seems like fair comment to me. They're attacking sources, and any comment they've made in these edits that is directed to another editor is limited to criticism of their choice of sources. I'm not going to act on this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
If you think "You're showing your ignorance again." is "fair comment", or that an editor's action can be described as "griping", especially in an area with discretionary sanctions and ongoing conflicts between editors, then you are part of the problem, and I think other admins should state their opinion on this as well! Debresser (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Damnit Ivan. I count nine PAs in that one single diff. How are you possibly saying any of these nine comments are "fair"???
  1. You're showing your ignorance again.
  2. your absurd POV
  3. Why aren't you capable of reading sources?
  4. I don't know why you bother continuing to reply in reality-based encyclopaedia.
  5. This fantasy project of yours will not gain traction here.
  6. This project is built on the use of reliable sources, not the strenuousness of your denialism.
  7. It will not be necessary for you to comment further.
  8. Your quotation of this document is specious misinterpretation, which is either wilful or incompetent, and I am not inclined to listen further to your griping.
  9. The extract you have quoted nails the final nail in the coffin of your ideology.
That's all from one comment! How are these anything other than ad hominem attacks? You should adjust your idea of civility looks like. This is not civil.
Frankly, the fact that more PAs were made while a proposal to warn for PAs was ongoing (with near unanimous consensus) makes me want to pull my support for my own warning proposal and support a TBAN instead. Levivich harass/hound 18:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, the moderating admin Girth Summit found it uncivil. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
"Why aren't you capable of reading sources?" is about as personal and uncivil as it gets... Drmies (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to hear from GPinkerton about this comment. Levivich harass/hound 18:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think all the hearing from them you'll get is down at the bottom of this page. As for the list of ad hominems above, I interpreted all of them as directed at an editor who was selectively choosing and serially misrepresenting sources, as pointed out by several editors on that talk page who were not GPinkerton, and in which case a comment like "why aren't you capable of reading sources", while not very nice, is valid. Anyway, Girth Summit seems to be perfectly capable of moderating that dispute and pushing block buttons if needed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This comment is adapted from one made on my talk page.I'm mystified at the way this situation is developing. I thought these processes worked better than I am coming to realize. Why is my choice of language so fascinating when the issue at hand is just being ignored? Is the discussion intemperate? Yes. Am I the one that created this situation? No. Look at the months of furious argument that squabbles on long before I ever made an edit. Am I the only one more interested in improving the encyclopaedia's coverage of the subject than this comedy of manners? Hopefully not. Am I unique in making accusations of bias and agenda pushing? Not a bit. I invite, nay, beg, editors to ignore for now this superficial (and partly confected) issue of courtesy and examine the real torrent of problematic editing which has been running in spate below the recriminatory rhetoric. If I am to be blocked for disruptive editing (viz. imncivility), an idea I am saddened even to have to defend myself against, how would Wikipedia be served by allowing other parties to this dispute continue editing? As was my original point in raising this whole issue here weeks ago, they are not suited to building an encyclopaedia. Uncivil language is not excusable, but this isn't about me being impolite. Was anyone watching when عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) wrote:
Or when Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) said:
Apart from the reliable sources I have added and the wilfully tendentious misinterpretations and Ba'athist ideology regurgitated back in return, there is actually nothing but incivility interspersed with a catalogue of unanswered pleas for administrator intervention, which has been going on for months (years?) before I ever clapped eyes on it, and would certainly continue unabated, just as it has been allowed to do for over a decade, if I were blocked. Blocking me would make absolutely no difference, the disruption would just continue. Happily, Ivanvector has perceived that I am not alone in identifying the real problem. I urge anyone else to look at the contents of the discussion, at the two ANI reports on this page as I write, and at all the other fora this ridiculous war over a warzone has spilled over into. GPinkerton (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, please everyone look at the Talk page in question for yourselves. The bottom line here is that user GPinkerton is presenting the Kurdish nationalistic narrative for this area of Syria as a fact, and as the ONLY fact. What we are trying to do is balance the article by presenting sourced content for other views on this. What I am providing there is pretty much quotes from French and British sources relevant to the era in question. What I get in response from this user is kind of "this X Kurdish author said this" and "this Y Kurdish institute mentioned that", and of course a ton of personal attacks (for the last ten days or more). On top of that, GPinkerton is mispresenting information, taking things out of context (e.g., leaving out important parts), or even adding/changing dates compared to what's mentioned in sources, one of which I explained in the edit here. This comment by Fiveby (who is not part of the dispute and has not edited the article in the near past) summarizes the situation: GPinkerton are you purposefully obtuse? If not you can look at the index from Tejel here under "Syrian Kurdistan, terminology" and view those pages, or Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria#Polity names and translations. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
And here is another edit from Fiveby describing user GPinkerton's mission at the article: And 'Syrian Kurdistan' has other meanings, implied and explicit, notably Kurdish nationalism#Syria. From your added content, you are writing an article not about that portion of Kurdistan in Syria, but through bludgeoning and equivocal use of sources an article about a multi-ethnic region from the perspective of one ethnic group. The ambiguous title and scope of the article allows a selection of content from Kurdistan, Kurds in Syria, Kurdish Nationalism, Rojava, Syrian civil war, etc. to form the article implied by this title: a Kurdish only nation of Northern Syria. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support reluctantly. Concerned that a warning is too weak and sends the wrong message as this editor badly needs to cool it, at least in this area. But it also seems clear that this problem is a two-way street. Taking action against one side only would send a worse message. Hence my support. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

One last thing[edit]

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

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

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

  • The asymmetry of this should be slanted to other way in my view. I don't see why the heavier sanction should fall on me. I have done more to improve the Syrian Kurdistan article than has been done in some time, and have never once touched the subject before. My first contribution to the talk page came long after the futility of interaction became apparent after exhausting the possibilities of rational debate at WP:RSN and WP:FTN (I think it was) and after the first ANI report about the whole issue. In addition, the problem with Amr clearly runs deeper. After numerous sanctions in the past and a catalogue of edits to pages relating to wider (and even narrower) Middle East geopolitical topics which display exactly the type of behaviour in other issues. And indeed, yet another ANI report has now appeared that relates to the same issue but involves neither he nor me. (i.e. the one about Diyarbakir (only the largest city in (Turkish) Kurdistan ...)) GPinkerton (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
In fact, I don't even agree that my actual edits have been partisan, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the talkpage. Unlike Amr (evidence catalogued in a section far below) and SupremeDeliciousness (evidence far above and who ought to not to go scot free give the history of ArbCom topic bans in this kind of area) I have not made tendentious edits to the article space and besides the partisan commentary no-one else has objected to anything I have done in terms of content. GPinkerton (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, especially measure 3, i.e. making it clear that this is not a facebook group where users roast each other and argue with the aim of winning and not to actually improve articles while keeping the NPOV. It would be refreshing not to expect a random guy online insulting you for entering a discussion! We all have our own POV, but this doesnt mean that what others think is "none sense", and that only we can understand sources. Im sure that I and the other editors will be able to reach a consensus and compromise if civility is restored and a constructive discussion can take place.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The comment above should be considered in light of the false declaration that "There are no historical record that puts the Kurdish inhabited regions of Syria within historical Kurdistan before the establishment of Syria." which is none other than the same conspiracy theory, refuted (and I mean refuted and not just denied) numerous times on the talkpage, that Syrian Kurdistan is a fiction created by post WWI immigrant Kurds from Turkey, a nonsense invented by the national socialist Ba'ath Party as part of its Arab Belt policy of ethnic cleansing in that very territory and cooked up in order to deny the legitimacy of non-Arab citizenship in what was later renamed the Syrian Arab Republic. Naturally the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary thought otherwise in the drafting of their definition of "Kurdistan" in their recent third edition, which defined Kurdistan as region split between four states, including Syria. Wikipedia needs to treat this kind of editing in the same way Holocaust denial is treated. GPinkerton (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me Ivanvector. First, this discussion is not about me, it's about GPinkerton's behavior across a wide range of articles and topics. Second, you had to go back four months to see something that looks like a personal attack from me side against a recently-blocked edit warring user, that has been insulting me and others (recent examples: here, here, here, here, here and here, and here, here.) for months without any any action, with currently three WP:ANEW open cases against them, here, here and here and waiting for ANY admin attention for more than TWO weeks. On top of that a fourth was archived for without admin action. Here is the edit you linked that you describe as a personal attack: ::Konli17, What does an Erdoganist/Assadist conspiracy theory have to do with Kurdish immigration to Syria in the 1920's? Obviously, you fail to argue with the sourced content, some of these sources are from the mid 20th century, long before Assad, and half a century before Erdogan. The content is well sourced, and well known by the way. If you don't like it, that's your problem, but then you can stay away from the topic. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Please go read the cases against Konki17 before you respond to this. I wonder how my comment above can be considered even close to the level of GPinkerton's or (Konli17's) behavior! That's unfair. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The user's name is Konli17, and I did read all of those discussions you forumshopped, long before I wrote this section. It's always about someone else's behaviour with you two, isn't it? And the diff I picked above was your first in a very long line of disruptive personal attacks on just that one talk page. I don't feel the need to subject anyone reading this far down with another laundry list of misdeeds. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by "you forumshopped"? All three cases were opened by other editors, while mine (a fourth one) was archived without action. In the three open cases mentioned above, there is at least seven users commenting about the disruptive behavior and edit-warring of Konli17. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with GPinkerton. Amr's WP:GAME approach to talk page discussions alone ought to invite stronger sanction, let alone the rest of it. Konli17 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Moving to close with whatever sanction that is imposed. Plenty of time has been given for voting and this discussion is way too long over one person. (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I still feel that stronger measures should be taken against GPinkerton, who was again blocked today...! After that is said, I agree with #1 and #3, but disagree with #2, or at least it should be limited to the same 3 months as #1, otherwise they could never go back to editing that same article, which is not what we want here. Add to this that in general I see no use in interaction bans, especially after a 3-month hiatus. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Debresser, GPinkerton is requesting an unblock. (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
So? By the way, {{nac}} stands for "non-admin closure". Is that what you had in mind? Debresser (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Fixed, meant {{nacmt}} (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1 and 3. Both editors apparently need to WP:COOL and this civility problem is proving more intractable than lots of contributors previously thought. (Non-administrator comment) Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Medicine edits from (, Institut Pasteur) reported at WP:AIV[edit]

Moved from WP:AIV: ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The IP address is very static, and administrators could choose pretty much any block duration to achieve the desired effect, if this is vandalism. The source and content of the edits makes it unsuitable for a quick decision at WP:AIV, however. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Viewing the IP user's edit history, example here, one can see it was lazy, same-content, unencyclopedic copying to several articles which already had histories and current content indicating the same message (concerning "PAINS" compounds). Bottom line: unconstructive editing and warring against admin, Materialscientist. Zefr (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for moving this off of WP: AIV. I still think this is a bit complex for just one section so we should be prepared to make subsections. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

From the guilty part: aside from the use of exceedingly fast judgment concerning my various entries which are actually all about the same issue: any natural compound with phenol function (curcumin among other) is devoid of any medical potential despite zillions of publication claiming otherwise. But who cares but the sellers/quacks who are making money on such substances by claiming various cure-all properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you're finally talking. Good. Now, slow down and learn Wikipedia's rules and take time to read the articles you're editing. While you were busy on your quest to right WP:GREATWRONGS, you missed that Curcumin already mentions this issue in the lead and body, using specific citations (to avoid what we call improper synthesis), and even links to our article on Pan-assay interference compounds (PAINS). Compare that wording to your own template wording and you'll see it is specific, better sourced, and neutrally worded (versus the emotive wording you used). You're not being reverted by fans of pseudoscience or "quacks", but by editors who understand how we need to write encyclopedia entries. Continue in this vein and I or another admin will block you. Fences&Windows 10:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

IP hopping POV warrior violating BLP[edit]

Blocked from Talk:2020 Delhi riots and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for three months by NinjaRobotPirate. (non-admin closure) Heart (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not sure if anything can be done about it, but a dynamic IP keeps on making comments like this [[92]] at Talk:2020 Delhi riots. Its clear the wp:nothere is strong in this one. But dynamic IP's are hard to deal with.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

THe reason why chose the IP hopping approach is because Slatersteven and a bunch of editors are trying to present a one-sided narrative of the 2020 Delhi Riots. They refuse to name anything to do with any perpetrator who is of Islamic affiliation and liberally use Hinduphobic language on the page. When i questioned them from my own account and IP, they blocked me for frivulous reasons. Now, I got their double standards, hook,line and sinker, they are claiming i am [wp:nothere]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
And PA's [[93]], and an admission of block evasion. Also as I am not an admin I blocked no one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
223: if you've under an active block you should successfully appeal said block before coming here. Coming here and telling us you're evading a block destroys any case you may have. Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
This editor's IP space appears to be (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Purely coincidentally this range is also being used by one of the beauty pageant promofarms, so I wouldn't feel bad about it being blocked if this editor pops up again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne Ivanvector Thank you so much. This is all the evidence I required for my article.:) This combined with Larry Sanger's interview should reveal the inner workings of Wikipedia and multiple organizations in India that currently fund wiki will also be enlightened. :) Thanks for all the help. I have screenshots and archives of how a simple edit request that the editors did not like, was sent into a maze of wp abbreviations which are applied selectively. And, when an editor gets exasperated, the editors then gang up on him/her to get a block which admins are all to eager to commit to. I also have your above edits of how you are not even opposed to blocking an entire range of IP addresses to keep uncomfortable edits from being raised. (which happen to be from a chain of coffee shops.). Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Really? So is the range block in place? I mean this is about a clear an indication of wp:nothere as you can get.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Gcmackay and COVID-19 denial[edit]

Despite being notified of the general sanctions (COVID-19) on this article this editor continues a pattern of disruptive editing. It began with this edit falsly claiming an article had been vandalised, which restored a version described as an absolute mess of undue weight by @Iridescent: and described as a completely whitewashed and perfectly free-of-bias overview of Bhakdi's career by @Ivanvector:. To see the horrific problems with the restored version you only have to look at the first paragraph of the COVID-19 section where it says in Wikipedia's voice The very negative sounding reports in the news media about the severity of the virus often result from bad statistics which are a product of poor quality of data collected, and of severely manipulated interpretations of the statistics. The editor has continued with their attempts to whitewash the article, for example claiming properly referenced information was "opinion/vandalism", removing properly referenced criticism of his views claiming "Removed reference and link to opinionated article" (the net result of which left a sentence reading During the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic, Bhakdi started a Youtube channel proposing that deaths from the virus has been overstated, effectively promoting his fringe misinformation without any rebuttal), adding weasel wording, further removal of the misinformation sentence, claiming it was an "unsourced assertion", and continuing to edit war to remove the sentence. Their conduct at Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi shows they have no idea about policy, so perhaps some sanctions could be applied to this editor please? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, I am new to sanctions, but the editor in question seems to be inexperienced, could the 500/30 rule apply? (Non-administrator comment) Mr. Heart (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Parblocked indefinitely from editing Sucharit Bhakdi; the relentless revert warring on the article after several warnings is unacceptable. I did not block them from the talk page because they have a point about describing a noted and award-winning scientist's entire career as "known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation" in Wikipedia's voice. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Ivanvector and FDW777, Gcmackay has appealed this block. (Non-administrator comment) Mr. Heart (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • A slight tangent, but the latest edit[94] further shows things are going a bit crazy at this article. I think some kind of protection would be warranted. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The article was already protected to only allow edits by Autoconfirmed and confirmed users on 20 Nov. Raising the protection to the next level, WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, would not have prevented the edit you reverted 2020-11-24T18:26:13. ◅ Sebastian 14:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

TBAN violation by Fæ[edit]

Blocked. Indef initially as Fae claims to not understand their restriction. Once they have confirmed their understanding I will reduce to 3 months. This length reflects the obvious intention to disrupt the election, failure to respect their restriction, bad faith in their responses here and casting aspertions. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good afternoon all, I believe that has violated their topic ban (imposed here) which bans them from the topic of human sexuality, broadly construed on the ArbCom candidate pages. They asked each candidate the same question regarding UCoC and its relationship to user pronouns and sexual orientation, an example addition can be found here. I believe that question is a pretty clear TBAN violation, and since this is a community-imposed restriction I am bringing this to the community for input on how to proceed. For my part, I will offer to remove the question from any candidate's page (as an ElectCom action) if the candidate wants. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I'd say have the clerks remove the questions from the Arbcom pages as they're a clear violation, but I wouldn't support any sanction in this case. The wording of the enacting of the topic ban is slightly ambiguous (all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues), and Fae may reasonably have assumed that because the election pages are neither "articles" nor "other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues", these particular pages weren't covered. The intent of the close as intended to apply to "trans issues everywhere" rather than "pages which already mention trans issues" seems obvious, but reading it in the more narrow way is a legitimate interpretation. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    As far as removing the questions is concerned, if the applicability of the TBAN is not clear, I think the issue must be raised whether the questions are disruptive - if they are not, then I don't see why they should be removed. And having read the sample provided, I don't see how that question (and the diff containing it) is disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see much room for misinterpretation in the TBAN - the close, as affirmed by Cullen last year, is "broadly construed," and I read the "all articles having to do with..." as a preemptive explanation rather than a narrowing of scope. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    I can't agree, since: A) ARCA has clarified that the scope of this topic as an ArbCom/DS matter definitely includes gender (not limited to "pages about", which is just unfortunate ANI wording), and the ANI-reimposed sanction is not a new one, but reinstatement of one that was imposed by ArbCom. B) The nature of the post is patently disruptive regardless, so it is independently subject to the expanded scope of WP:ARBGG (including sexuality and gender, broadly), and Fæ is subject to those DS, having previously been sanctioned under them. So, there are two independent reasons a sanction cannot be evaded here. Also C) per GeneralNotability, whose gist can also be expanded as: attempting to interpret this topic ban, in special part, as only applying when an entire page is about that topic is very obviously not the intent of the T-ban, and nothing in the ANI imposing it (or earlier RFARB+ARCA for the original version) could possibly suggest such an interpretation. Cf. WP:Wikilawyering. Also D) the imposer of the sanction reminded Fæ of the full scope, in response to edits not in "a page about" gender, etc., but a random bio.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    To be clear, I'm in absolutely no doubt that the questions should be removed (and I'd even argue that they should probably be revision deleted unless they're needed as evidence in a future case against Fae, as they're clearly made in bad faith in an effort to provoke a fight between two candidates). The only point on which I think we disagree is that I don't think the question in and of itself is worthy of restoring Fae's permanent siteban, which would be the end result if it's concluded that this was an intentional breach. ‑ Iridescent 18:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Even I'm not I wasn't originally arguing for a ban, more like a meaningful block and pushed-back appeal, clearer remedy wording for sure – and perhaps a one-way interaction-ban, given how long this "attack SMcCandlish until the end of time" behavior has been going on. The breach of the DS (personal attack, disruptive purpose) was blatantly intentional, but the breach of the T-ban per se appears appeared to be testing/gaming; the editor has attempted such "find the edge" behavior before and been reminded by multiple admins that it will not end well [95][96]. While it can't go unaddressed, this looks like a "maybe I can get away with it one more time", not a "go out in a blaze of glory". PS: I feel no personal need for revdel; my skin's thicker than that. Update: Fæ's own commentary below makes it clear this is very intentional agitprop. It should be revdel'd because it's having a poison-the-well effect. Someone else can ask a "clean" version if they want to.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC); updated: 20:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Given Fae's lies (or at absolute maximum WP:AGF, deliberately misleading statements) below, switching to straight support either restoration of the site ban or a lengthy block for disruption. Fae isn't a new user who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and can't possibly expect us to consider obvious BS like "by 'I wasn't notified' I meant that I wasn't given a notification on Commons" as credible, and likewise can't possibly believe that it's acceptable to claim the participants in this thread have been canvassed without providing any evidence—if The off-wiki discussion exists. Some of the accounts here have the same names there then there should be no difficulty in telling us which names. This is just someone yanking our collective chains and not, as I initially thought, a good-faith misunderstanding of the terms of a topic ban. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the question is germane to the WMF's goals and to ArbCom elections. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    The issue is not whether "the question is germane to the WMF's goals and to ArbCom elections". That's irrelevant. The issue is that Fæ is not allowed to ask said questions. If you are concerned about these issues, you can ask the questions. Topic bans are about the behavior of an individual, and what they are not allowed to do. They are not about anything else. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think Fæ should be granted an exception that distinguishes ArbCom elections from other parts of Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    If we granted one editor that exception we'd have to grant it to all TBANed editors. Not a good idea IMO. Levivich harass/hound 18:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    And there is no policy basis for such an exception (WP:BANEX is specific for a reason), nor was one intended in the remedy, nor do we provide exemptions to permit attacks and other disruptive posts.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see any valid reason for Fae to not be blocked for violating the topic ban. This is clearly in violation, and is directly in line with the repeated drama that led to the tban. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I was filing a different request (for ElectCom) while this was being opened. I'll just paste it here:
Simultaneous report:
ElectCom clerking request

@GeneralNotability, Mz7, and SQL: I believe this question (probably also posted to other candidate pages) is inappropriate and should be removed from any candidate pages on which it appears. Reasons:

  • It is a blatant topic-ban violation. The editor – (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – is indefinitely banned from "from human sexuality, broadly construed ... includ[ing] ... transgender topics and issues" [97][98], and has been recently reminded by Cullen328 that it will be broadly construed. This restriction is still active.
  • It contains a many times disproved falsehood, namely that I have an "apparent viewpoint that using of gender neutral pronouns should be seen as intrinsically funny". The editor has been making these false claims for over a year, until their T-ban shut that down. (It is in connection to an essay about self-aggrandizing commercial/political/religious language being used in Wikipedia's own voice; it used a particular pronoun as a framing device, but in a way completely unrelated to transgender usage. I'm actually pretty well-known by now as one of the chief defenders among the MoS regulars of singular-they and of MOS:GENDERID, especially as regards to not mis-gendering bio subjects.)
  • This is a repeat of character assassination by this editor that is part of a long-term pattern of abuse against me in particular (and at least one other), for which they have previously narrowly escaped sanctions at both ANI and RFARB, until other same-topic disruption resulted in reinstatement of the topic-ban above. This is part of a pattern of transgender-related disruption dating back over a decade, including a years-long site ban. That ban was lifted on the specific condition that the editor not return to that sort of behavior [99], yet it continues unabated.
  • This smearing of me in that post is completely extraneous, and bears no connection to the question the editor finally gets around to asking. It is purely a personal attack.
  • The question (even if it came from someone else and did not contain the falsehood) is disingenuous and does not serve a legitimate candidate-assessment purpose. Its clear primary intent is to manufacture drama between various candidates (especially CaptainEek) and me. There is no extant (or historical, that I can recall) conflict between me and these other candidates, so this is just flat-out disruptive. Even the actual question at the end is not ArbCom-related at all, but is just "lobbying" for changes to a policy this editor would like to see happen, disguised as a question.

Further administrative action might be warranted, since it is both a T-ban violation and a transgression of discretionary sanctions that cover this topic (of which the editor is well aware, having been repeatedly subjected to restrictions under them, and having been informed in an ARCA request that gender issues are definitely within the DS scope, even before the extant T-ban).

As a standing candidate I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to pursue AE/ARCA/RFARB at this time, though I think this party must understand by now that further tendentious hostilities of this sort would [normally] lead there. If this had occurred in any other context, I would be filing a case request right now instead of this clerking request. This user has also been warned that further WP:HARASS-style behavior would be referred to WMF T&S, since it has also involved off-site actions by this party against both me, and another editor for whom serious real-life consequences resulted. I don't think that's warranted at this time, since the T-ban breach is likely to result in a non-trivial block at least.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

On the ElectCom page, I suggested deleting unanswered copies, refactoring answered ones to the talk page, and in any refactored ones deleting the personal attack if it was not addressed in the answer, or striking it if it was. (I.e., no need to nuke candidates' honest attempts to answer.) Update: I now support revdel; someone else can ask a similar question without attacks, etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC); updated: 20:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Just to note, I have asked some more neutrally worded questions on similar topics, and will be genuinely interested to see the answers. The Land (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Absent a reply from Fae explaining their thinking I would see this as a tban violation, as such I would remove the comments and reset the appeal clock (minimum 6 months from now). It could be argued that this was an important question (in which case it would likely be asked by others) but in this specific case it wasn't asked in a generalized form. Instead it specifically carried on an old feud by calling out SMcCandlish and his's SignPost article. That article and presumably it's author were highly contentious points for Fae. As such I don't see how this can be viewed as an inadvertent slip into a gray zone. Springee (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • An additional consideration is that the community blanked it for a reason. Continuing to dredge it up for unnecessary reasons does not serve the project's interests. Well all know the essay was a terrible idea, and I will catch hell for it for life, but we need not keep pointing people (many of them new editors) to Signpost in a state that the community did not want it to remain in even in an archived backissue. It was grossly inappropriate to do it again in this way, using it as a wedge to push an ArbCom-unrelated policy change agenda, a false personal attack, and an attempt to directly sow discord between editors.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Whether the question is germane is irrelevant. These questions (Fae's first enwiki edits for two months, I notice) are a clear topic ban violation and have clearly been placed there as a deliberate attempt to derail an ArbCom nomination. They should be removed ASAP and I wouldn't oppose a block, either, because it's just really poor and WP:POINTy behaviour. And this is coming from someone who was unimpressed with the original issue that is referred to. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a clear violation of the topic ban. They questions need to be removed, and at the least a VERY strong reminder of the topic ban is needed, though a block is definitely warranted as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a clever way of attacking SM while using the dispute as a self-aggrandizing wedge issue. Separate of any TB violation, the PA should be addressed as well through normal disciplinary actions. If the questions are not removed outright, the names should be removed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, in combination with the "if it's been answered ..." stuff above, name removal would be good, rather than just revdel'ing the lot.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a clear an unambiguous violation of Fae's topic ban. I have no opinion on any course of action going forward regarding what should or should not be done about it, but it is a violation, nonetheless. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I see a few candidates have answered my question, taking it in good faith the way it was intended, and based on the evidence. Candidate Guerillero's response demonstrates why this is a good question for Arbcom candidates and provides an opportunity to illuminate the issue in advance of the election completing and while the quoted WMF UCOC is being drafted - I was not around for the essay referenced getting published, but reading it now it makes me feel rather uncomfortable. The fact that the concerns of a lion's share of the commenters and discussants at the MfD found was addressed to the writers and the staff of The Signpost before publication and ignored gives me exceptional pause. I am shocked by the author's refusal to acknowledge that the essay was imprudent and his attempts to wave away the complaints as a manufactured controversy.

As raised above I think the issue must be raised whether the questions are disruptive. As per the link in the opening of this thread my question more than a year ago was "could you clarify whether this applies to the Arbcom clarification request which is about the misuse of anti-transgender language when it has literally nothing to do with article content or improvement, nor the two articles which were the only diffs raised in the thread about bullying that morphed into vote on ANI?" My understanding of the TBan created by a majority vote at ANI, was that the locus of that discussion and its scope was Wikipedia articles and their discussion pages. It never entered my head that this would extend to good faith factual questions in an Arbcom election, especially considering that our votes in the election happen on another site and my question has nothing to do with any Wikipedia article, nor any discussion about a Wikipedia article.

If folks want to make my question even more anonymised that's fine by me, though I'm unsure what key evidence you would still link to.

I am concerned about the active canvassing of this discussion in a thread off-wiki, where SMcCandlish has previously posted, and which is likely to have attracted attention, despite me not yet having been notified that this discussion exists, or being contacted by anyone directly in good faith for an explanation of my understanding of why in my understanding, my question and the Arbcom election process fell outside of the intention or the scope of the TBan. Thanks -- (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I find your accusation that I was "canvassed" here and that somehow my opinion is invalid because of that to be baseless and I wish you to retract such an accusation. I found this discussion by reading it for the first time here at ANI, I reviewed the evidence, and I gave my opinion. Your accusation that I was influenced by some other discussion I was unaware of is unfounded. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Ditto. If you're claiming I've somehow been canvassed you can either point out where you think I've been canvassed, or you can retract and apologise. I do note that you were notified of this thread within one minute of it being started, so I find it hard to believe your claim that we were canvassed "despite me not yet having been notified that this discussion exists". ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The off-wiki discussion exists. Some of the accounts here have the same names there. These are observations, not accusations. -- (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I just looked at WO and I don't see a single user who has commented there about this thread, who has the same name as anyone who has commented here in this thread. Levivich harass/hound 20:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I have ANI on my watchlist, for obvious reasons. I hadn't seen the WO thread since last night (although I have looked again now). Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And I absolutely, positively did not post about this ANI or that question on some offsite location. Fæ using their statement above to make false meatpuppetry accusations is a further DS breach in this topic, and using this space to take an advocacy and wikipolitical PoV stance about why their content matters so much, why the question, in a vacuum, has merit, and the adminstrative-social intent of it, rather than focusing on whether it was a T-ban breach and other matters related to the ANI issue, is a doubling-down additional breach of the T-ban. (Venues like this are T-ban exceptions only when the material is pertinent; and an admin directly reminded Fæ of this as well [100].) We're kind of past first law of holes territory now.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As one of the few who suggested GN throwing this to the community, I think the ElectCom decision of keeping the question and making it optional is the right way - some people view it as pertinent, some don't, but most will agree that it is quite WP:POINTy. Coming to the question of violation, I think that it can definitely be seen as one (as a lot of people have already pointed out). @: It would be helpful to provide links of where anything has been canvassed - iff it doesn't violate WP:OUTING. --qedk (t c) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    It would be easier if those that came here as a result of reading about it off-wiki were to state so. Past experience has shown that it's better to avoid driving on-wiki discussion with links to non-Wikimedia discussion sites. -- (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: There is related discussion (with additional redaction or placement suggestions) among the candidates here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Coordination#Question by Fæ  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • despite me not yet having been notified that this discussion exists What, apart from the ANI notification that the OP posted on your talkpage 2 hours ago? Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing that out. I was going by my notifications on Commons, I guess it was not showing as a ping, or maybe I dropped in on the page and didn't realise before moving on. -- (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • With regard to discussions along the lines that because the Signpost essay was blanked, links to it are inappropriate, this seems irrelevant as the original essay was never blanked, it's at User:SMcCandlish/It and its continued existence there was defended by SMcCandlish rather than taking on that blanking would be appropriate. This seems a situation where you can't argue it both ways, that nobody should link to it, but the creator of it can still have the joke essay public. -- (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Except no. MfD declined to delete it, and I later decided not to {{db-user}} it, because people who want to talk about it are free to examine it here, my scarlet letter, without tarring Signpost with it forever and ever.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    This view of the facts seems to conflict with Well all know the essay was a terrible idea, and I will catch hell for it for life, but we need not keep pointing people (many of them new editors) to Signpost in a state that the community did not want it to remain in even in an archived backissue. However if you want me to change the links to the Signpost history, to the userspace essay which is still visible and searchable, then that would seem a minor change to the facts of the question to Arbcom candidates which I'm happy to do for you. The candidates generic question was illustrated with the notable example, not intended as a rehash of the facts of the deletion. -- (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Read and think again; you're having some kind of comprehension glitch. My two statements are entirely compatible with each other. And you cannot change links in any of these posts. You seem to have forgotten why this ANI is open. Unless there's something substantive to address, I don't think I should engage directly with you any further.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the worst aspect, looking at Fæ's "defense" above, is that the propagandistic bent of Fæ's posts actually worked. The quote above, by a candidate steered to the old Signpost stuff (which is unrelated to the actual question) and with only Fæ's distorted view of about it to go on, shows the candidate to assume blindly "the author's refusal to acknowledge that the essay was imprudent", without checking. In actual reality, my own candidate questions page (among many other venues) does exactly the opposite of that assumption. Fæ seems to have genuinely succeeded in manufacturing "enemies" out of nowhere in the middle of ACE, and done so by poisoning the well with politicized, extraneous, bad-faith-assumptive, and untruthful dirt-mongering about another candidate instead of posting an honest question for the candidates. It's like the worst behavior of the 2020 US election is seeping into Wikipedia.
    I am now of a mind to support revdeling these Q&A blocks, and for the T-ban breach and DS breaches to result in re-imposition of the site ban. If someone wants to ask a more appropriate version, they can do so, and candidates who have already answered Fæ's grotesque version can just recycle their answers in the new Q&A block.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) This was a very clear topic ban violation, breaking both the letter and the spirit. That Fæ was not aware that it would be a breach is not credible given the clarifications and previous discussions about it. This leads to two questions - 1) what sanction, if any, should Fæ receive for the topic ban, and 2) what should be done with the questions? The answer to 1) imho is a block is necessary. It would appear to be the first block for the violation, so 1 month would seem appropriate for a duration, with a concurrent 1 month block for the personal attacks. Regarding 2) I believe this should be decided by the election commissioners, but I have no problem with it being removed or collapsed with no prejudice against another user asking a related question in a civil manner if they see fit. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Closes go at the top not the bottom. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The clarification referenced stated "For the sake of clarity, this includes all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues." An Arbcom election question is not this based on a plain English reading, and this was my understanding based on my own request for clarification back in August 2019. -- (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I think this is a violation. It is starting a discussion (yes it is only two people, but a discussion can be two) about a topic you are TBAN'ned on. I also think that the question itself was rather pointed, though that isn't a issue, its that the TBAN violation is to comment on another user and not a accidental or good faith mention. I therefore think some level of sanction is needed. I think a block of at least a month is needed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I also support a block (of any duration). Fae's made less than 150 edits in 15 months since being TBAN'd (last 150 contribs), including the edits related to whether Fae violated the TBAN at an RFA last year (see bottom of the contribs list): not counting TBAN-related edits, I think the number drops below 100. This includes zero edits in the last two months. Taking a wikibreak from this project is no problem; returning from a wikibreak to essentially continue the feud that led to the TBAN is a problem. It creates a lot of work for a lot of editors, as we see here and at the Arbcom pages right now, and as we saw with regard to the RFA last year. The questions should be removed/revdel'd; someone else can ask them if they want to; but that's up to the election commission. Levivich harass/hound 21:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fae has essentially quit editing and only showed up now to cause trouble. A one-month block would be lenient. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would support a block, but I am not convinced that Fæ deserves an extraordinarily long one, necessarily. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not "quit editing". I have been editing via a ToR browser due to the Uni systems being made very unsafe after the systems were brought down with a successful trojan, the case made the national papers. This has stopped me editing here as my IP has been blocked for the last 2 months as you notice, my edits today are on a secondary system. The TBan does have the effect of making me unable to edit the biographies that I was creating for the past few years, which has resulted in editing at a tiny fraction of past levels. This is why I asked the clarification question in 2019. My edits since have been relatively minor changes, I believe mostly connected to my Wikimedia Commons projects, correcting Scientific Racism across the projects, and supporting projects for the User Group I am mostly associated with along with consulting off-wiki on the UCOC and even having discussion with the reformed T&S folks. -- (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I am concerned about the active canvassing of this discussion in a thread off-wiki, where SMcCandlish has previously posted, and which is likely to have attracted attention It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest SMC has canvassed there. He posted on the off-wiki ACE thread at 07:04(UTC), in reply to a comment about non-admins running for ArbCom, and this was some 5 hours before Fae posted the questions to the ACE pages. SMC has not posted there since. Fae's name was first mentioned on the thread at 14:18. The discussion thread on ACE2020 has been running for two weeks. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Sure, don't disagree, never intended to imply anything else. -- (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Electoral Commission comment: Because this is a violation of Fæ's topic ban, we have collapsed Fæ's question on all election Q&A pages, regardless of whether the candidate has answered the question. We have also removed the part of the question that improperly speculated about SMcCandlish. If candidates wish to answer the question anyway, they are permitted to do so by editing the collapsed content. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • (ec) Fae has been around long enough to know what "human sexuality, broadly construed" means. The clarification "this includes all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues." does not mean that an ArbCom election page is somehow exempt. It is very disingenuous to suggest that because the voting takes place at Securepoll that this is somehow outside the scope of the ban. They showed out of the blue and posted these questions after two months of inactivity and specifically mentioned a user they have been in conflict with - this was not just an innocent slip that one may make in the course of regular editing. I think a block is appropriate.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What would be useful for me, would be a better clarification of the TBan that would enable me to be confident editing biographies or other articles. Currently anything I might add about people, or anything LGBT related in any way, including historic portraits, would hard to avoid all possible TBan interpretations. As stated it never occured to me that election questions about the UCOC and respecting pronouns would be off limits. -- (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Update: Fæ has been blocked by Spartaz. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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


While this particular incident has been closed, at what point do we say enough is enough? Fae has had so many sanctions over the years, has been caught lying, manipulative and acting in deliberate bad faith numerous times. They have (above) tried to intentionally sabotage and smear another editor during a community process. The idea that Fae is going to change their spots (when actually their behaviour has become worse over the years) as the result of another block is really nonsensical. Time to start talking about a perm community-sanctioned ban. Fae has had more 2nd chances than practically anyone else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Let them have their three months off. I disagreed strongly with the original ArbCom siteban but this was a clear and intentional breach of the restriction and an attempt to disrupt the election, combined with smearing another editor. Fae knew, or should have known, that this was coming. After that, they can return with all previous restrictions in place. If they do something like this again, then it would feel appropriate to start discussing a permanent or at least long-term (ie 1 year +) siteban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Enough is enough. As Only in death outlines above, we've already given Fae too many extra chances. I would support making the indef permanent. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Not that my opinion on the matter would carry much weight here, but I do not really think a parma-indef is really appropriate for the first violation of a topic ban. I agree with how Spartaz has handled it here and want to at least try things his way. –MJLTalk 01:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Never understood why Fae was unblocked, there is no benefit to the project imo, even with restrictions he has only one topic area of interest, his problem area, there will only ever be trouble with his edits here. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    In my opinion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a net negative to the encyclopedia. I had a previous run in with Fæ (see full disclosure below) but I am trying very hard to look at this impartially and not from my personal experience.
(Full disclosure: a while back Fæ aggressively attacked me for using the wrong gender identification, not accepting my explanation that I had simply forgotten about the request. At that point I made a huge error in judgment that I will be hounded for until the end of time no matter how many times I apologize: I foolishly looked up some terms that multiple websites claim are good alternatives to "he" and "she" and used those rather than the exact terms I was asked to use. That was wrong. What I should have done is to stop interacting with or referring to Fæ in any way.) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thinking about this further, I reviewed what I previously wrote here. I stand by what I wrote then, especially the evidence that Fæ attempted to get people removed from their positions. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with an extended block or a permanent ban. Fae's history on the English Wikipedia is long and undignified - Fae was initially banned [in 2012] and then had the ban reviewed. A topic-ban remained in place until 2016 when Fae successfully persuaded Arbcom to remove the topic ban. Then in 2019 he was re-banned from the topic of sexuality and has just broken that reinstated topic ban. To me that looks like Fae chiselling away at the limits placed on their conduct and every time justifying the fact those limits were imposed. Fae remains highly confrontational with a strong tendency to respond aggressively and to twist peoples' words beyond recognition to give themselves something to disagree with. Time to end the drama. The Land (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock calculation needed[edit]

Looks like we're done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Been dealing with this vandal for the last couple months...the IPv6 has taken to adding false channel positions to cable channel articles, including adding non-existent channel positions for the United States to articles dealing with networks which aren't based in the US...and even when they have an international US feed, the channel positions are either fake or apply only to one city (usually the Spectrum systems in metro LA; the IPs are in the Riverside, CA area), along with non-existent foreign language feeds. The IPv6 was a Spectrum cable IP and was blocked for 6m and I thought that was the end of it...but then they just moved onto their TMobile cell phone, hotspotted it, and renewed their vandalism. The TMobile IP on .149 got a 6m block, thus they jumped to .243, and here I am, asking for a rangeblock calculation on the IPv4s. Thank you. Nate (chatter) 23:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) the smallest range that encompasses both these IPs appears to be, which is also the size of the ASN CIDR range. Blablubbs (talkcontribs) 00:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:Advice_to_T-Mobile_IPv6_users#Dealing_with_malicious_T-Mobile_IPv6_users has some advice for admins and it should be noted that T mobile is harder to deal with then with Verizon or AT&T for vandalism as the users can come from a very large IP range. Blocking this IP range, even to try and stop an LTA such as this one, may cause collateral damage. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The IPv6 is a Spectrum address that's already been blocked for 6m; I'm more concerned for the TMobile IPv4s, which won't have the issues with a block the 6 would. Nate (chatter) 01:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It might be an option to block the whole /21 range, but for now the vandalism comes only from two /24 ranges. So I've blocked (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three months each, anon only. Other admins may adjust these blocks as needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I have no objections to the range or the timing, that's perfect. Thank you so much for the help here. Nate (chatter) 03:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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


Cannot tell if this is an AT&T wireless or home connection, but they've returned anew again. Nate (chatter) 02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked 2600:1700:3B00:ED50:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO (need an admin who speaks French)[edit]

I saw a question on the help desk that I could not give an answer to because I don't understand French. Could someone with knowledge of the language look into this?

Previous ANI (and one AN) reports:

  • ...and here we have XIIIfromTOKYO accusing Delfield of being a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee/Archive (See 28 August 2020 section). Alas, it was closed as stale instead of with an admin opining on the accusation. Worth looking into further? I have no idea.

Please note that some of the above use the wrong username: XIIIfromTokyo instead of XIIIfromTOKYO. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: if you need any help in French, may I advice you to go to the French Village-pump. Many admins overthere can speak English ; some might even have time to have a look at the issue.
There is a strong case against Launebee/Delfield for abuse of sockpuppets (initiated by @MePhisto:). Don't expect any input from me as long as the sockpuppet issue has not been tackled. I grow tired of @Delfield:'s campaigning methods. That kind of insults-based harrassement has to stop.
XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I speak French, will have a look in a moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not see anything special in the diffs. Narky Blert's analysis is correct, the sources are reliable but describe the situation in the past. I would just let it go by the usual dispute resolution avenue.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

IP racist POV pushing[edit]

I was re-directed here from the fringe theory noticeboard.

This IP editor has made changes which remove references to white people as people. As per the cited diffs below, the editor also openly states that white people are not people, and that institutional racism incorrectly allows white people to 'consider themselves human'. Also see the editor's edit summaries.

Diffs I noticed include: [101] , [102] [103]

Although this does not seem to be a prolific editor in terms of the extent of the abuse I believe this is an urgent matter due to the saddening prejudice and racism involved in claiming that people from a certain ethnicity are not human. I feel unable to deal with this personally by contacting the editor, since they do not consider me human. Surely this cannot belong on Wikipedia. Thanks. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I just composed a report and found that someone had beaten me to it. Here is what I was going to post:
  • "allowing [whites] to call themselves human while preventing them from recognising that [people of color] are the real people.[104]
  • changing "whites people" to "whites" and "blacks" top "black people".[105] The edit summary specifically says that "people" was removed because whites are not people.
  • More of the same, plus changing "white communities" to "white colonies"[106]
  • Apparently, it isn't "sexually abusing underage white girls" if they are white. It is "sexually active with young white girls." [107]
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a bit worrying, but I wonder of this is in fact some alter-righter tying to make a point. They do seem to be a wp:spa who is wp:nothere. At this time (however) a warning would be in order, a very strong warning. But only as its their first time here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I Also note they seem to have got bored.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This week-old trolling needs an ANI report why? --JBL (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Clearly POV editing, but this dynamic IP editor hasn't edited in 5 days. Nothing we can do here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That was a rather quick close. It would have been nice to have more than 13 minutes to respond. The last edit was three days ago on 22 November 2020.[108] While trimming my report to the most egregious examples, I inadvertently deleted the IP shift. Sorry about that; my mistake. I doubt that this person is going to stop and I believe that a range block limited to the pages the IP has abused the most would be appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Re-opening; there was some confusion about the time span. No opinion on the merits. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • /20 not helpful. /16 shows more general vandalism. Meh.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: What makes you think the second IP (79.) is the same as the first IP (88.)? I know I might be extremely naive here and the two IPs geolocate to the same place, but I note that 79 (in the 22 Nov edit) reverted 88 [109], 79 did not remove "white people" as 88 does, and changing "black" to "Black" (or vice versa) is a very common edit. I'm not sure the two are the same person. 88's edits are clearly terrible, but 79's aren't (unless I missed something). If we did a range block, what would the range be (haven't all the problems been only from Given that 88 is a dynamic IP and the last edit was 11/20, the lease will likely expire soon if it hasn't already, so I'm not sure what good a block will do, or a warning. Levivich harass/hound 17:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Just a judgement call, and of course I could be wrong. I thought that the geolocation plus the content (capitalization of "black") plus the same ISP plus the same page -- a page that gets maybe 4 edits a week -- passed the WP:DUCK test. I also concluded that it was most likely not some alt-right troll pretending to be a racist black because someone like that would typically make 100% racist edits. But I am just guessing. Anyway, it looks like there isn't an obviously good range to block, even with the advantage that page blocking gives us (unlikely to cause collateral damage; the next person who get that dynamic IP is very unlikely to edit the same page) so we might as well close this again. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
(non admin comment) Capitalisation of "Black" without more is not a WP:QUACK. I routinely capitalise names of ethnic groups and races as a mark of respect, even if I think a distinction is pseudoscience. Narky Blert (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the MOS pit. DFO
Do you routinely capitalise names of races days after a racist troll capitalised names of races on the same rarely edited page using the same ISP and living in the same city? WP:QUACK is a pattern. Just living in the same city isn't enough. Just editing the same page isn't enough. And yes, just capitalizing the same words isn't enough. but all three together? See [110].
Also, just as an aside, the capitalization question is controversial. See The Case for Capitalizing the B in Black: Black and white are both historically created racial identities—and whatever rule applies to one should apply to the other. in The Atlantic. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought that was established best practice when I restored the capitalization; you can investigate me for sockpuppetry if you want I guess. We should probably have a MOS for this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion on that issue here. Schazjmd (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Responding to a couple points here before someone closes. Geolocation in the area where these two IPs land is really inaccurate: from these results I would not confidently state their location any more precisely than "somewhere in Great Britain". As for timing, these networks are huge (just over 2 million IPs in the largest case; the largest range we can block is just under 65,000) and very dynamic. An IP user who had one address three or four days ago probably doesn't have that same address now, and there's a really good chance if I block it I'm actually blocking a completely different person. That's why when I see "this dynamic IP editor hasn't edited in 5 days" I follow that up with "nothing we can do here". That's of course not entirely true (pattern tracking; checkuser black-box stuff) so it's worthwhile to report anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Of course in the longer run, there is something that can be done, but only by the WMF, which is to have them come to their senses and disallow IP editing completely. Never happen, but just saying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Persistent Clever Vandalism by Gaming the System with possible COI, sockpuppetry and metapuppetry[edit]

Some editors are collectively removing highly referenced information from the page Akinwunmi Ambode repeatedly. There may be COI involved in this case and the editors are not responding to my comments in talk pages either in the page or in their user talk pages. There may be suckpuppetry or metapuppetry involved as well. The ex Governor of Laos was subject of controversy as can be found in a b c d e f g h i j. These are related to the well known allegation of fraud of N9.9bn linked to the ex-Governor and a highly controversial deal of Visionscape at Lagos. While reverting, the editors are using deceptive edit summary to disguise their edits against the spirit of Wikipedia. Why someone will try to remove some highly cites information from a Web Page with so desperation if they do not have COI? I have decided to post it here for seeking admins to look into this and stop these editors from suppressing the truth. While I am not sure, seeing the behavioral pattern it seems the accounts are operated by a single person. (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • While it would not exactly surprise me if two of the editors there were the same person, you appear to have a tendency to write about scandals in a way that is clearly un-due and not a summary of events. Most uninvolved editors would have reverted at least parts of your additions. Their edit summaries are correct (and not deceptive) as your additions don't follow WP:BLP and WP:DUE. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this was intentional, but the section header sounds borderline sarcastic. Darkknight2149 03:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Really. What would "metapuppetry" be like, exactly? Sockpuppets achieving self-awareness and creating their own socks? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
When there's no more room in Hell, the metapuppets will walk the net. KenForee2149 19:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • An obvious step that could be taken is to subject all edits by unconfirmed users to review. How do people feel about that? Deb (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thjarkur 1. I have no interest in any scandal. There is a difference between scandal and controversy. 2. I haven't added a single new word to that article (pls see history). I have been trying to restore the article in its previous state when I saw the removal repeatedly. 3. I have been perfectly fine with the edits you have made and the shape you have given to the article. (but unfortunately your edits are not there any more, diff). 4. I do not have any stake in the article. I did not have any wish to continue reverting at that page any further. Feeling that way I posted here to let veterans and admins conclude what's right and what's not. 5. To iterate, some editors are trying to eliminate some relevant highly cited facts altogether from the article which will make the article violate WP:DUE. And I see they are now successful in doing so. If the present shape of article seems fine to veterans and admins like you, I also have nothing else to say. (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

New Jersey IP disruption joined by new user doing same – violation of MULTIPLE[edit]

Genre warrior suffers terrible fate. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The New Jersey IP range Special:Contributions/2601:89:C700:4440:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for one week by Ohnoitsjamie starting November 18. The block expired and the IP range immediately resumed genre-warring in articles about music, especially related to bands such as Gorillaz and Blink-182. This genre warring is the same style as new user BlinkDayz, showing an identical pattern of source quotes pasted into edit summaries, the same articles of interest, and the same genre-warring.

  • Example one: The song "Quarantine" had the pop punk genre added by New Jersey IPs.[111][112] When pop punk was removed, BlinkDayz restored it.[113]
  • Example two: Quoting a source in the edit summary.[114][115][116]
  • Example three: The album Power Up had the blues metal genre added by New Jersey IPs.[117] It was removed and restored by NJ IP.[118] It was removed again and restored by BlinkDayz.[119] It was removed again and restored by New Jersey IP.[120]

Looks very much like a violation of WP:MULTIPLE, especially since the new user was registered right after the IP rangeblock expired. Binksternet (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

New account indef'd, range blocked 6 months, nothing but genre-warring. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you muchly. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive revert-warring by User:Iaof2017[edit]

Iaof2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) displays a continuing pattern of revert warring in a wide range of Albanian related articles. This is accompanied with the use of highly aggressive tone in his edit summaries (latest example [121][122]) and stubborn refusal of any kind of talkpage participation (as in Amantes (tribe) [[123]] and Tomorr [[124]]/while again no trace of him in tp [: organisation et évolution des]). This pattern is not new and has been reported a few weeks ago [[125]] a block for the same reason was also imposed [126]. Unfortunately the best results were a couple of hostile comments in his edit summaries while reverting. Thus, despite being recently blocked and warned [127][128][129] this kind of disruption is still in full swing and even users that share some common interests with him raised serious concerns that this will led to serious restrictions or blocks [130]. A new short term block will probably provoke a much more violent behaviour. So perhaps a 1rr restriction on his field of interest might convince him to avoid continuous wp:NINJA and to participate in the correspondent discussions.Alexikoua (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

What about you? [131][132] (only the recent one). What about your counterpart @Khirug, who always intervenes when it comes to your reverts and disputes, why don't you report him for his continuous disruptive history and reverts in almost every article he's involved, including you? Just because we strongly differ in our opinion? Feel free to report me but be fair at least.--Lorik17 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why Alexikoua asks for a 1RR restriction about someone who is not even engaging in actual disruptive editing - their most recent revert (Amantes) was two days ago. Doing one or two reverts (not even reaching 3RR) because they disagree with you on a subject is not an actionable issue - definitely no more actionable than the fact that at the same time Alexikoua reached 3RR on Amantes[133][134][135][136] despite the fact that they were reported to AN3 for 4RR within November[137]. Amantes (tribe) is an Illyria-related topic, to which has Iaof2017 has made significant contributions - 150 edits, almost entirely in past week just on List of settlements in Illyria. He's a valuable editor to the topic area - definitely not someone with "a pattern of revert-warring". To recap, none of this is actionable and all editors should be more careful in the way they approach disputes. If there are broader disputes which editors consider actionable, then they should have a wider community discussion on WP:AE and everybody's editing history will be scrutinized.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The disruptive pattern displayed by Iaof is exactly the same that got him blocked, but now a new level of battleground mentality has been reached: I'm astonished by the fact that he stubbornly refuses any kind of talkpage participation (though endless reverting). Additional examples of revert-warring without taking time to participate in talkpage: [[138]] and [[139]] but screaming (notice the caps in his edit summaries). Persistent denial to join any discussion in this fashion is not a constructive behaviour.Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
What I also find quite weird in his editsummaries (apart from attacking co-editors and extensive use of caps) is his 'talkpage' cliché word [[140]][[141]]. This perhaps means that a talkpage discussion should be followed, nevertheless Iaof never joined a discussion there. His entire participation in talkpages is limited to only 3 or 4 short comments in the last 2 months.Alexikoua (talk)  
Iaof's talkpage contribs mostly consist of personal attacks of this type [142], and little else, unfortunately. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Can this hoaxer be blocked please?[edit]

Blocked and deleted for a blatant hoax. Fences&Windows 17:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Huengaud created House of Heyngarten, which was already deleted in 2009(!) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Huenergardt. It is now again up for deletion because I didn't know of the older one then, and because I don't know whether it is a G4 speedy or a rewrite. Looking at their other contributions, they added that unknown "house" to Royal family right behind the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs[143]. They then created Velten Hunergart, unsourced, unverifiable, and with an "image" of the two 17th century brothers from Hessen[144], which turns out to be a 19th c generic depiction of folk clothing in Tyrol[145]. Their other images are equally dubious.

Looking at their earlier edits, I see things like this, completely unverifiable as well. This was reinserted by an IP last month as well[146].

The "house" articles might have been a misunderstanding of our notability and sourcing rules, but the fake images, fake royalty, fake nobility claims, give me no confidence that this editor is here for anything productive. Fram (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

House of Heyngarten was a blatant cut-and-paste move from Draft:House of Huenergardt right after it was rejected by AFC (see House of Huenergardt). I've deleted the copy. This new version is not the same as the article deleted in 2009, but as Þjarkur pointed out, the issues from the 2009 deletion discussion remain. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, as I said at your talk page, that is one thing the editor didn't do wrong, and the deletion for that reason was incorrect; they were the only content creator of that text, and they are free to create a rejected draft in the mainspace anyway (it is not a smart thing to do, but it is not disallowed, and not a reason for deletion). Fram (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
There are contribs from a few others in the draft history, and I would call Þjarkur's review comment significant enough to warrant CWW treatment, even though Huengaud removed it before copying the article. The usual fix for a cut-and-paste move is to recombine the two pages through a history merge, which in this case would leave the article revisions under the draft title, but there was no difference between the two so I didn't bother. What would you like me to do here? I could restore the article, merge the draft into it, and restore the deletion discussion? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The review comment wasn't copied over (or immediately removed? I think the creation was only the original text, nothing from the draft review, but I can't check). I would undelete the article, and reopen the AfD; depending on the AfD outcome and the outcome of this section, we can then either redirect the draft to the article, delete the article but let the draft remain (if there are judged to be possibilities with it), or delete both (and more, though that may be Commons work as well) and indef block the creator. Fram (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The comment I mean was removed from the draft before the draft was copied. The copy was bit-for-bit identical to the latest revision of the draft. I've merged everything into the now-undeleted article and I'm working on undoing the AfD close. If AfD ends in a "draftify" result it can be moved back. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
And you're both right: the draft wasn't rejected, it was an article that was draftified by an AFC reviewer, which I took to mean the same thing but I recognize I may be mistaken in that. In the second case maybe Huengaud was simply trying to revert draftification, but they did it wrong, and the fact they removed the comments and created the article under a different title lead me to believe they were trying to do an end-run around the new article review process. I'm happy to revert my deletion and let the AfD play out, but I would rather not have two copies of the article floating around. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of the path the article's taken it's blatantly a hoax. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Unequivocal TENDENTIOUS editing by عمرو بن كلثوم on Syrian Kurdistan[edit]

A particularly blatant example of this user's chronic and incorrigible POV-pushing by misinterpretation, (namely, that the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" should not and has never been used). To illustrate:

  • [147] I add a 1978 source (among many) explaining the meaning of "Syrian Kurdistan" to a discussion in which this editor is claiming there are no sources that use this term, or none before the 1980s. (In this discussion at NPOVN.)
  • [148] User:عمرو بن كلثوم then reintroduces this source rather reverentially as "Martin Dr Martin [sic] van Bruinessen (Fellow of the Kurdish Institute in Paris)" while indulging in argumentum ex silentio about the book's preface! (On the Syrian Kurdistan talkpage.)
  • [149] User:عمرو بن كلثوم is taken aback at my refutation of his claim that the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" does not appear in the book (it does and is explained), and suddenly changes his mind on "Martin Dr Martin" the erstwhile worthy academic in respectable Paris, whose PhD-thesis-turned book was published by the University of Utrecht Press, but who in Act 2 now appears a radically changed character, a mean scholar [he's actually a professor] whose book is now merely personal opinion and tainted by association with the Center for Kurdish Studies (sounds very neutral) [emphasis original] which, in the space of less than twenty-four hours, has now become unspeakably biased and unusable for reasons that remain unexplained. The statement concerning Kurdistan divided between four modern states in the professor's book is now neutralized as now NOT an established fact. (The question of the reliability of arguments drawn ex silentio from the book's preface is not addressed ...)

Should editors doubt that this was perhaps a one-off or perhaps a disputed subject capable of quibbling, the user then proceeds to argue against the Oxford English Dictionary, which, for the avoidance of doubt, states without ambiguity that historic Kurdistan now exists in the territories of four states, including in Syria. Ample and damning further evidence of this user's tendentiousness, stonewalling, and wilfully inaccurate representation of sources may be found throughout the article's talk page. (And doubtless throughout the user's editing career, which is long and punctuated with blocks for nationalist edit warring and similar behaviour from which it is clear from the peculiar POV adopted here that they have never learned and should be blocked indefinitely.)

A previous report I made on the same editor for the same behaviour weeks ago was archived without administrator comment or action and may be consulted here. GPinkerton (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this dispute on the article talk page, GPinkerton? This sounds like a content dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: Yes it's been discussed to death. Actually discussion was effectively exhausted before I got there; the issue is this behaviour. GPinkerton (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Liz, if you're feeling brave and patient, this is related to #Syrian Kurdistan, at war again and #Proposal to take action against User:GPinkerton further up the page. A fine use of about 16,000 words so far, not including this section or any of the long discussions on article talk pages. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack and legal threat from[edit]

Personal attack a month ago. Legal threat, today. Looks like the same has been behind this IP since at least September 10. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz has blocked for 31 hours, she beat my one-year block by a few seconds. I doubt that this user's IP is static but it's obviously them on it since the last warning. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ivanvector,
I was going to give them an indefinite block but Twinkle sent up a warning message that this was inappropriate for an IP address and suggested 31 hours. Feel free to block for a longer period of time. You have handled more of these situations than I have. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
(ec) It could be a sticky dynamic IP. I think it's typical to start at a few months, for such addresses. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't handle a lot of legal threats by IPs, most armchair-lawyer editors are smart enough to make their legal threats from an account under their own real name. The length I selected was more related to the pattern of personal attacks that goes back at least a month, and based on their talk page statements that they intend to keep it up (WP:RGW). But if a short block gets the point across then we don't need to go longer, but I'll check back on Saturday and see where we're at. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Quick resolution needed for a conflict[edit]

Thepharoah17 is currently reverting serially what Konli17 has edited and questions Konli if he was a sock. He doesn't revert for content, only for the edit being an alleged edit of a sock. Diffs are


This socket puppet investigation filed by ThePharoah17 needs a quick resolution, the conflict is not really helpful to the project.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Thepharoah17 needs to stop with those edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What more evidence is required to show this Syrian war stuff is far bigger than meets the eye? GPinkerton (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually there are three active edit warring (3RR) cases against Konli17 that admins have been ignoring for two weeks. Somebody should look into the vandalism of Konli17. Slow edit warring (and sometimes breaking 3RR) on several fronts. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

NOTHERE block for Edgy01[edit]

Block applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This account has shown intermittent activity going back at least as far as 2013, but this Pizzagate BLP violation [150] combined with the long list of talk page warnings should be enough for NOTHERE. Geogene (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. reported by LightandDark2000[edit]

This range has been blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from WP:AIV: ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oshwah, Drmies, Zzuuzz, Berean Hunter, Widr, and Favonian: Can someone please block this LTA? And if a CU reviews this request, a quick CU on the range would be helpful in uncovering potential sleepers. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Report concerning user Sam tum[edit]

Sam tum (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) User is constantly using all-caps in edit summaries (as in WP:SHOUT), and its user-page seems to be mistaken for their sandbox. I think the user should be warned to not use all-caps. Thanks in advance, --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

CrystallineLeMonde, please discuss this with them. Admin action is only needed if discussion fails to resolve the issue. Fences&Windows 14:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Secondly, it looks like that the user is promoting a service. Edits need to be investigated. Based on the Talk page, the user seems to be doing disruptive edits and seems like it did not stopped doing it after numerous warnings.--CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Nobody has tried talking to them, including you, CrystallineLeMonde. That's expected before bringing an issue here, so please do that now. What evidence do you have for promotion versus this being a fan? You need to provide diffs and analysis if you're going to allege a COI. Fences&Windows 00:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the user who knows the topic related to the current report: @Emperork: I'm not familiar with Philippine broadcast / channels' programme blocks, so this user may help us out. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! The issues I have encountered so far with this user has been about adding unsourced information especially on local broadcast of international tv programs. I did notice that he contributes on both rival local TV network programming here in the Philippines which is ABS-CBN and GMA but his contributions are more skewed towards toward the former. This edit says "ANO BA, KAPUSO. HALATANG ATAT KAYO. GIVE NAMAN SOURCE, OKAY? *shocked*" which translates to "Hey, Kapuso. You're obviously in a hurry. Please give a source, okay?". Kapuso is a collective term for GMA viewers/fans. The all-caps in his edit summaries are new to me. — Emperork (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Firstly, I only deleted comments that referenced me personally without a hyperlink, or comments that were replies to my own comments which I had deleted. The initial set of comments that I deleted were already collapsed within a "soap" template, so they weren't visible in the first place. I deleted that section of comments since I was the one who started the section. In fact, on that note, I will mention that I actually started the section as an independent section with an independent header, though another user, without my permission, moved the section into a subheading under another heading. I never intended for the section to be a subheading under a different header. There has been a double standard regarding other new sections that other new users have launched. I'm not sure why the decision was made to move my section specifically under the other header. In any case, the original intention of my section was tainted when it was moved under the other heading. The discussion was also clearly going nowhere, so I terminated it early on. In fact, there were not many comments in the section, when compared to the numerous other sections that have been launched roughly at the same time. Meanwhile, regarding the deletion of comments that reference my username without a hyperlink, the reason for doing this was that I wasn't actually able to see the comments in my notifications. When users hyperlink your own username, you typically get "pinged". I was not pinged when In wkpd started talking about me behind my back. When I came across the offending comment, I deleted it, though I also left a comment alongside the edit stating my reason for the removal of the offending comment. Furthermore, as other users on the page have stated, we should avoid talking about other users and should discuss the topics at hand. So, I think I did the right thing in this regard since I chose not to carry on with the irrelevant discussion about myself. After this occurred, In wkpd posted an entirely new section where he again started discussing my username, though this time, he did actually ping me. I ended up deleting this section but then transferred it to my own user page, in order to continue the discussion outside of Talk:Taiwan, since other editors have requested that we do not discuss topics that are irrelevant to the primary discussion that has been going on. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Secondly, I do admit that I have been making a lot of edits, though I would not necessarily call it spam. I have a habit of writing a lot of brief comments in quick succession, i.e., like a thread. This is just a bad habit of mine, however, it's also caused by the fact that my internet connection is not so good, so I worry about whether my edits will be saved if I sit there writing for more than twenty minutes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thirdly, yes, I was "personally attacking" the videomaker, true. However, given that he was being used as an author of a source on the page, and, in fact, the one that sparked this entire 15,000-word discussion, I have been trying to discuss the veracity of both the source and of the author himself. Here, I have actually found a pretty good reaction video to Nathan Rich's video. Maybe you guys here don't care, but I personally thought it was relatively comprehensive. It's nearly half-an-hour long. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I could probably make a couple of points, but I will leave it at this for now. I don't wish harm unto anybody. I'm just trying to break down the facts here. I'm also trying to get to the bottom of this Nathan Rich guy. As far as I can tell, he's a propagandist of some kind, or a "grifter". I don't know much about his background, though I have encountered him quite a while ago, so he's not exactly someone new to me. On the other hand, it seems that he might be new to In wkpd? I really don't know. Anyway, my point is, don't just trust the things people say at face value... You've got to actually investigate these things. Try to think objectively and independently and critically. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, these "personal attacks" that In wkpd is referring to were mostly targeted towards Nathan Rich. I honestly don't have the energy to personally attack any of the users (Nathan Rich is not a user but rather an author who was cited in a source). I've had disagreements with several of the users though I would not call these "attacks". Generally speaking, I've been relatively civil, and I've been providing quite a lot of analysis of the topic that we've been discussing -- we've been discussing Taiwan's political status, as well as some other topics that are related to this. None of this analysis is backed up by sources, though, with that being said, no one else has really been backing up their analyses by sources either, for the most part. And it's already been established that Nathan Rich's YouTube video does not constitute a reliable source. So, overall, when In wkpd says "Jargo Nautilus has been making a lot of personal attacks", it should be clarified that these attacks have been generally targeted towards someone who is not actually a user on the talk page. As such, these attacks do not really qualify as "ad hominems" or whatever you'd like to call them. They're directed towards the author of a source that was cited. I've been accusing the author of having nefarious motivations and a criminal record. I'm not sure if this goes against policy or what, but I think it is important that we don't give extremists a platform? Honestly, correct me if I'm wrong here; maybe you're allowed to post sources that were published by extremists? I know that a Wikipedia page about "The Donald" (Donald Trump's alt-right fanbase) exists. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Right, so, the comment that In wkpd was referring to, regarding the lack of a hyperlink, was this one: "They might be trying to protect Wikipedia in the free world from the invasion of the "unfree world". Well, that was kind of a joke. Frankly speaking, they might really be thinking this is a common sense, and mainland Chinese's common sense doesn't count, because their media don't have free of speech. That's just one of my speculation, it's better to let them explain themselves. But OTOH, I think their action might already be abusing Wikipedia as a tool to spread their idea, a really common idea in WP though, see Systemic bias # The "average Wikipedian". Not 100% sure though, I'm still learning. There're also users like Jargo Nautilus who started the section Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a felon, a fugitive and a fraud?, and seem to refuse to listen to different point of views and have a real discussion." Essentially, there was more to the comment than just "refuses to listen to other POVs". He was accusing me of being some kind of delusional freedom fighter. Also, he was accusing me of believing that mainland Chinese people's opinions don't matter. FYI, I myself am ethnic-Chinese, although I was born in Australia. -snip- What I'm trying to say here is that I'm not some guy who believes mainland Chinese people's opinions don't matter. In fact, I am opposed to the Chinese government, which I view as totalitarian, though this primarily stems from my political affiliation with the Anarcho-Communist movement, and doesn't have anything to do with racism of some kind. I do not believe that the Chinese government represents the majority of Chinese people. Instead, it represents a minority of oligarchs within China who are only interested in attaining power for themselves. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Just so you know, it's 3:26 AM where I live, currently. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
"not really discussing the issue he brought up" - What exactly do you (In wkpd) mean by this? You do realise that I've written two entire essays explaining my view of the Taiwanese political situation? Additionally, I've been replying to almost every message that has been addressed to me or is a reply to one of my previous comments. I've been conversing with several people at the same time, which is part of the reason why I've made so many edits. However, it must be said that this debate has been stretched thin across multiple sections. I've been trying to keep the discussion pinned down to a single place. Also, I cited an article from Taiwan News explaining exactly how Nathan Rich qualifies as a "felon". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Holy wall of text, Batman. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I was recieveing ping after ping of "Jargo Nautilus has edited WP:ANI." (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Why is your text small? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
After your wall of text it was necessary to conserve space in every way possible. EEng 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm going to try and get some sleep now. In all honesty, I've got no idea why In wkpd cares about this issue so much. It literally has nothing to do with him, as I've explained. He himself says that he only recently just started reading up on the political status of Taiwan and the relations between Taiwan, China and America. He's also launched far more attacks -- and vicious ones too -- against me than I have against him. Like, honestly dude (In wkpd), I don't care about you. It's not a crime that I don't care. It's just a fact. I've got a lot of stuff going on right now and you're not very high up on my list of priorities. Anyway, peace. I'm going to sleep. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Jargo Nautilus, without reading too much into the content of the conflict, your removal of other people's comments on a talk page is against talk page guidelines, especially if they've been already replied to. You can ask other users to strike out their comments, but you are not allowed to remove them yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Right, makes sense. But what about comments that have been collapsed in a soap template? Also, the guy who did that didn't really give a super good reason (if any?) for doing so. Also, what do the rules say about moving sections of conversations around the talk page and placing them under other headings? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
FYI, the "soap" accusation against me could easily apply to any of the other editors there. It's a mess... I've been trying to shut down the conversation from the beginning to no avail. That's why I've been questioning the legitimacy of the original source that was cited, which sparked this entire conversation. I will admit that I've gone off the rails at times, though this has generally been a response to others doing the same. In wkpd himself wrote like three or four essays within the space of a day. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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

To clarify what happened here, I moved the messages over to my own talk page so that we could continue the conversation there instead. I left a brief message explaining what happened. Though, admittedly, I might have failed to ping In wkpd. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's another relevant edit. This guy thinks I'm far-right, lmao. I'm an anarchist. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Jargo, stop. Your constant posting, posting, posting, longer and longer, is making it impossible for administrators to be able to sort through it and help you, and the fact you're posting what results in a truly massive wall of text - I have a fairly large monitor, and it almost completely fills the screen - especially without allowing the other party to respond is bludgeoning. You really should have posted a much more consise explanation of your position in the first place; as it is now, go and have a cup of tea and wait for discussion to proceed. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
"Nautilus" is my given name, "Jargo" is my surname. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus, focusing on issues like these will not due you any good, please defend yourself in a clean and precise manner if you want to prevent being blocked. I would suggest taking a wiki-break from editing while reading up on some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible to lock the page Talk:Taiwan temporarily? The entire talk page is an absolute mess, with random people coming in from all over the place trying to make radical changes to the long-held consensuses of the article. These discussions were initially sparked by a YouTube video that was made about Taiwan by an American YouTuber based in China that went relatively viral; in the video, he suggested that Taiwan's status be changed from "country" to "part of China". As a result of this video, one user vandalised the page. Another user reverted this. Then, discussions were opened up about the political status of Taiwan, and this derailed when In wkpd decided to cite the aforementioned video in order to "start a conversation". A second user came along and opened up a new section specifically discussing this YouTube video and the points made within it. I made early attempts to bring the entire conversation to a halt, though my objections were ignored. I then made an entire section dedicated to criticising the YouTuber who made the video, and this section ended up being censored through a "soap" and "notforum" template. It must be said, though, that this entire time, I did not make edits to the article itself, and my activities were limited to the talk page. Overall, this entire situation is extremely messy and I think it should be scrutinised more closely. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus, the talk page seems fine. Every talkpage is open for anyone to comment on an issue or to raise an issue. However, this is not the issue at hand and I will not be commenting on this further. Please focus on how you can improve your behavior on Wikipedia. (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797 - I did not appreciate other users referencing my user account in order to make an example out of me. What can I do in the future in order to deal with this problem, which is clearly aggressive behaviour? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus, while I didn't read your rebuttal, you can cite WP:AGF. However, I find this unlikely, you do not WP:OWN talkpages or mainspace pages. Please be weary of this. (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797Alright, that makes sense. In any case, I do think the comment left by In wkpd amounted to an ad hominem attack, though perhaps not so specifically against me since he merely made a general statement "People here refuse to listen to the opinions of others...", and then cited me as the one specific example of "people". The next time something like this happens, perhaps to a more severe degree, I will take it to the ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus, do you understand what you need to do to improve? I am asking this so we can close this very long discussion. (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797 - I'm going to study hard and lie low. The only way to fight the system is to beat it at its own game. Thanks for the useful conversation. Sorry for dragging it out so long. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797 - I am also going to take up meditation again. This stuff majorly stresses me out. No idea how you guys can do it on a daily basis. Props to you all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus, Okay, now I am worried about you saying "beat it at its own game." Could you please elaborate on what you mean about this? (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797 - Basically, I'm not exactly an idiot, but I'm really hot-headed and do/say a lot of stupid spur-of-the-moment things. That's where the meditation comes in. This entire situation was basically just bait, which I fell for relatively easily. Also, other users on the talk page had malicious intentions, though they were a lot more cunning with how they conducted themselves. I'm not saying I intend to break the rules. Rather, I intend to outsmart my opponents. Which is why I need to study. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus, EdJohnston is completely correct. What you did here is unacceptable, and copying it to your talk page or whatever just makes it worse (since no attribution is given). This also is not acceptable. Your walls of text are awful, your diversions irritating ("This guy thinks I'm far-right, lmao. I'm an anarchist."--we don't care). I have reverted your most recent contributions to that talk page, because they contain insults and personal attacks and add nothing to any discussion on the topic. So here is my warning: if you make another personal attack on that talk page, remove someone else's comment, or post material that does not directly pertain to a discussion on article improvement, I'll gladly block you from the article and its talk page. And in general, it seems to me that you are already on very thin ice here; any further infractions or examples of incivility are likely to lead to a block. And in the spirit of this edit (or this rather ironic correction), I don't care if you say "yes sir" or "yes ma'am", but I strongly urge you to be economical, whatever you want to say. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean no attribution was given? In the edit history? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus, please familiarise yourself with copying within Wikipedia, where [a]t minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page.
I moved the messages over to my own talk page so that we could continue the conversation there instead. That's not how it works on here. You can reproduce the text from other editors elsewhere, but you can't remove it per talk page guidelines again (unless you have their permission). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I think I did leave a message afterwards as an edit, though I forgot to write a comment in the edit summary. I said that I had migrated the conversation over to my user page. In any case, I won't do it again. Thanks for clarifying this information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
To be clear: leaving a message afterwards is not sufficient. Unless it's your own user talk page, do not remove or refactor content other editors have placed on talk pages. Period. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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

There were multiple discussions going on that could fall under the definition of "notforum". And what do you mean by "abatement"? Also, I request that I don't be blocked. I don't plan on adding any additional comments, though I may want to remove or edit some of my pre-existing comments. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Abatement. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

POV-pushing IP editor needs a timeout[edit]

From the IPv4: Using Trump's twitter as a source, Using Gateway Pundit as a source, Calling me a "paid Biden hack" (I'm actually being paid by the Illuminati; get your facts straight...), and this.

The /64 (previously CU-blocked by Ponyo), attempted to remove a warning from the IPv4's talk page, calling it "defamatory content", the same language used by the IPv4. Plus they have similar edits going back at least a year, so I'm guessing they are somehow connected. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hard blocked them both for a long while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User removing CSD tags[edit]

Blocked 31h. Cabayi (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meghan Lohan has removed the CSD tag on Janix Marie Mendez three times, ignoring all TP warnings. Note, the article is a recreation of Janix Mendez for which the editor did the same thing. MB 22:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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


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

Problematic/WP:POVPUSH behavior:

  1. Accused PhilKnight of having "a biased viewpoint" (17:46, 25 November 2020) after being warned by SnoogansSnoogans for edit warring on Nahshon Garrett‎ (User talk:Pkeets#Edit-warring on Nahshon Garrett, warning at 14:46, 25 November 2020). Similarly, they placed a retaliatory "warning" on SnoogansSnoogans's talk page (17:48, 25 November 2020).
  2. 20 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#Servers seized by the US military?: "POV is showing" apparently in response to this edit. Followed by making commentary about something Powell apparently said on a Glenn Beck segment.
  3. 20 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#"Some sources have described Powell as a 'model of a high achieving lawyer' while other sources have called her a conspiracy theorist": accused editors of "[belittling] her accomplishments because she's taken on Trump's legal fight", accused GorillaWarfare of an "edit war" for reverting in the WP:BRD cycle, accused both GW and AleatoryPonderings of editing the article "to be a reflection of short-term battles going on in the media", repeatedly engaged in WP:POVPUSH on the idea that somehow Wikipedia should represent Powell's claims as plausible despite all WP:RS coverage otherwise.
  4. 24 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#RfC: Describing Powell as conspiracy theorist?: lack of understanding of WP:RS policy along with "There's apparent clarification on Powell's role from the Trump Team today, but it's not being covered by main stream media, so I guess it doesn't exist, right?", and accused editors of "an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot."
  5. 23–24 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#This article seems biased and short on who Sidney Powell is.: repeated accusation of "an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot", and some comments about "Look what that does to Wikipedia's credibility" after being pointed to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  6. 26 November 2020, on Voter Integrity Fund: accusing others of conspiring to prevent them from "establishing links" to de-orphan the article, and trying to direct individuals to "check the history" for supposed "preliminary findings" of the group ([151])
  7. 26 November 2020, regarding Voter Integrity Fund at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voter Integrity Fund, accused other editors of "suppressing" the group's supposed "findings". ([152])
  8. 25 November 2020, attempted to create a section on GoFundMe [153] for the purposes of listing right-wing grievances, specifically only listing the organization's removals of campaigns for "Voter Integrity Fund" and the perpetrator of the Kenosha unrest shooting.
  9. 15 November 2020, repeatedly pushing the talking point at various articles that Biden was somehow not President-elect despite WP:RS concurrence that he was/is; claiming that describing Biden as such is a violation of NPOV (examples, there are far more in contribution history): [154] [155] [156] [157]
  10. 22–23 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Primary vs. secondary sources, lack of understanding of primary vs secondary sources, and Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing. Making unfounded claims about the origins of the report to try to portray it as a secondary source. Commenting, "You don't want readers to know it's easily hackable?"
  11. 23 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Article references biased alt left news sources rather than scientific sources. The claims in the articles are scientifically absurd, apparently trying to recruit a SPA with an unrelated complaint to support their argument, with the comment "Please join the discussion in the section above where editors are blocking a paragraph on how the Dominion systems are vulnerable to hacking." [158]
  12. 24 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Disappearing paragraphs on reliability, accusing editors of "disappearing" material, again misrepresenting sources (up to and including trying to use a paper that was analysis of an entirely different company), again conflating primary/secondary sources and independent/self-published sources. To quote GorillaWarfare: "I am concerned with this ongoing behavior: both the attempts to use shoddy sourcing to influence readers into believing Dominion is "easily hackable" (per your admission on this talk page), and now increasingly making accusations against editors who are trying to enforce quality sourcing that they are "blocking a paragraph on how the Dominion systems are vulnerable to hacking" and "disappearing paragraphs"."

They are also the creators of the pages Sidney Powell and Voter Integrity Fund, both of which are problematic. The creation of Sidney Powell had precisely five sources [159]: two to her personal website, one to her business website "" (which is attributed in the copyright notice to "Sidney Powell P.c."), one to her blog page at, and one to an IMDB biography page. None of these sources managed to establish notability at that time and none were WP:RS.

Just before creating Sidney Powell, they promoted Voter Integrity Fund conspiracy theories [160][161].

Their creation of Voter Integrity Fund [162] also appears to fall into the problem behavior. Their text did not match well with the sources; they took only the quotes positive towards the project (despite the overall sources' tones being highly skeptical), and sourced some information to dubious pages such as a small bio on the "Leadership Institute" website. Edits since by Pkeets have been reverted for falsely representing sources [163] [164], for bad sourcing and copyright violation concerns [165]. They have also tried to slide in a link to the group's self-promoting videos on Youtube [166]. The page is currently up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voter Integrity Fund) and the only supporters of keeping it are Pkeets and a throwaway account that was created solely to vote there (Stevenola).

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

  • The editor Pkeets is using Wikipedia articles to promote conspiracy theories about fraud in the 2020 election, as well as voter fraud in general (see the editor's history on the PILF[167] earlier in the year). The editor does this by (i) removing reliably sourced content that reflects poorly on groups and individuals who make unsubstantiated and false fraud claims, and (ii) stating poorly substantiated conspiracy theories in Wikipedia's voice or by attributing them to these individuals without any kind of qualifier that the claims are disputed (see for example how the unsubstantiated claims of a pro-Trump group of randoms get characterized as research/investigation "findings"[168][169]). The editor engages in some edit-warring[170][171] but not any clear-cut 3RR violations as far as I can tell. The editor also engages in behavior that borders on canvassing, such as seeking help from WikiProject Conservatism[172] and contacting likeminded users[173]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Noting that I am WP:INVOLVED for the purposes of this complaint, so this should not be taken as an uninvolved admin comment. I have been a party to several of the discussions listed above.
    I share IHateAccounts' concerns with this editor. I was actually quite surprised to find that Pkeets has been a prolific editor for quite some time (though with a bit of a hiatus from October 2016–June 2020), because their blatant POV-pushing and poor use of sources struck me as the behavior of a newer editor. It could be that they got somewhat rusty with policy over that hiatus, though not that much has changed and they were never really fully inactive.
    Anyway, that tangent aside, it does not seem that they can set aside their personal beliefs on what happened in the 2020 election in order to edit productively in this topic area. Their contributions are disruptive and time-consuming for other editors to deal with. Adding to what Snooganssnoogans said above about their attempts to canvass at WikiProject Conservatism, that linked discussion is not the only attempt Pkeets has made there. The last three sections at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism were started by them, and significantly misrepresent the disputes. Several editors challenged Pkeets' changes to Public Interest Legal Foundation because they were unsourced, included claims not in the provided sources, and/or used poor-quality or primary sources; Pkeets described this as "Apparently there is resistance to any kind of editing to extend it or improve the POV" ([174]). The issue with sourcing at Dominion Voting Systems, described by IHA above, was portrayed by Pkeets there as "unreasonable demands for sources" and included further misrepresentations of the sources ([175]). Finally, in their section there on Sidney Powell, Pkeets again says Powell was "being framed as a crackpot conspiracy theorist" ([176]).
    I think at least an AP topic ban would be appropriate. I have not yet looked too much into their editing in other topic areas to know if these issues persist there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell this is a common issue with IHateAccounts. After seeing how active they are on user talk pages trying to get people they disagree with sanctioned I decided to take a closer look at their contribution history and what I found is a disturbing trend of bludgeoning, attacks, and way to much time on user talk pages discussing other users. All this after being warned[177][178] about such things and even blocked[179] for it they continue their apparent crusade as demonstrated above.
  • This really needs to end now. PackMecEng (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    I will keep this brief to avoid encouraging editors to derail this thread with complaints about IHateAccounts, but I have disagreed with PackMecEng's characterization of IHA's behavior once already: User talk:GorillaWarfare#Re: Bus stop. I'm not even sure how PackMecEng found themselves at my talk page to leave that comment, but I don't understand their criticism of IHA's (frankly wise) choice as a newer editor to consult with more experienced editors about issues in a fraught topic area; that is behavior that I believe should be encouraged, if anything. Furthermore, they fail to mention that the concerns IHA had with Bus stop turned out to be quite founded, resulting in a recent AP2 topic ban for Bus stop (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler) which was upheld after an appeal (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Bus_stop). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    When it keeps happening it goes from wise to harassments and problematic as I have shown above. I do not know why you would want to encourage such toxic behavior in such a controversial topic area. It is frankly disturbing and baffling from an admin and an arb. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I am well aware that, as a right-wing editor, PackMecEng dislikes me (especially since I am nonbinary). They even have taken to blaming me for the fact that some of their friends have been sanctioned, which I consider incorrect. In their series above they make gross misrepresentations; for instance, when I commented to Drmies regarding Geno4445, it is because their SOLE edit on Wikipedia - EVER - is this [211] in which they ramble on about the very conspiracy theories promoted by Powell and end with "For if this corruption is not purged, then the United States stands to be subjected to such people like Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro" at Sidney Powell. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for posting this. It is a prime example of the editing issues I demonstrated above. I appreciate the (especially since I am nonbinary) part since I have no way of knowing, never talked about it and could not care less about it. WP:ASPERSIONS like that are a big problem. PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@IHateAccounts: You provide a wall of diffs for the initial accusation up at the top of the thread, but none for this one? If you don't have any, this is an incredibly inflammatory comment, and a blatant personal attack. jp×g 23:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I for one would like to thank IHateAccounts for saving me the trouble of reading the diffs to determine if PME's analysis was accurate. Q.E.D. Levivich harass/hound 04:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Similar commentary seems to have continued on GorillaWarfare's talkpage about this AN/I thread: I'm walking away. I knew there was a likelihood posting this would lead to multiple right-wing editors coming in to scream, but I think what I need is a hot soak with a lush bomb.[212]. About that battleground attitude... --Pudeo (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • NOTHERE? That's just shameful. Here we have the OP, a month old account that already had to be blocked for personal attacks and harassment, and Pkeets who has been editing more than a decade and who has created almost 1,000 articles with a clean block log. I beg to differ who here is not to build an encyclopedia. People have opinions about American politics and that shows in content disputes, but obsessing over them like this is not healthy. Pkeets is likely to "lose" the AfD, is that not enough? --Pudeo (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:AP2 applies to everyone. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • IIRC, IHA has been around a whole heck of a lot longer as an IP, and was encouraged to create an account by several well-respected editors, some who have commented here. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
      • It's hard to say. Sometimes they are referred to as new other times not. Seems situation dependent. PackMecEng (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This thread starts off with Note please: I am not asking for a WP:NOTHERE sanction -- so it sounds to me like the desired outcome is a TBAN (not sure why this wasn't brought up at AE if that was the case). In that case, the disputes this thread were spawned from are the primary issue at hand. While I don't really love to get political with my editing, and I think it's important to avoid derailing an AN/I thread, I think it would be impossible to discuss the dispute in question without mentioning OP's conduct. For example, on the talk page of the article this thread is about, they have been heavily involved in multiple disputes, in a distinctly WP:BATTLEGROUND way: using the page as a forum to insult the subject, hatting and removing entire sections after disagreeing in a BITEy way with the comments in them, describing posts they disagree with as "rants", et cetera. They've even gone on other users' talk pages and described Pkeets (the editor this thread is a complaint about) with recursive scare-quotes as being "on the "but affidavits" and "but 'the media'" kick yet again". All of that is literally just in connection with this one article; not to get off-topic with other stuff here, but it seems to me that IHA experiences broad difficulty participating civilly in discussions about WP:AP2 subjects. I have held back on making a post like this for a while (I don't have an enduring interest in getting mad about politics on Wikipedia), but in a very short time period this editor has started (or brought extreme acrimony to) a large number of vicious disputes, and I think it might be necessary to take some action in that regard. jp×g 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Long-term editor or not, IMO GorillaWarfare's post above already provides sufficiently convincing edivence of tendentious editing by Pkeets to justify an AP topic ban for Pkeets. Of course, ANI is an extremely poor venue for obtaining consensus for topic bans related to conentious POV laden areas. These discussions usually get quickly sidetracked by the participation of editors from both sides of the dispute who often have significant POV and conduct issues of their own. I don't have much hope that this thread will fare much better in this regard. A much better course of action here would have been to file a request at WP:AE asking for an AP2 topic ban to be enacted under the discretionary sanctions in effect. Pkeets was formally notified about those discretionary sanctions back on September 24[213]. Quite possibly the OP deserves the same kind of a topic ban. I just wish people used AE for these purposes instead of producing train-wreck interminable ANI threads. Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems to me to be a straightforward case with more than enough diffs to support TBANing both editors from AP2. What AP2 needs is fewer battleground editors, and it doesn't matter which "wing" they're from. Levivich harass/hound 04:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
If i may correct your spelling, Levivich, "What Wikipedia needs is fewer battleground editors". Otherwise, amen and hallelujah to your comment; happy days, LindsayHello 08:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support AP2 ban for Pkeets, I'd need to see more about IHateAccounts. Template:ReIHateAccounts this really should be at WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose any topic ban longer than 3 months. Reviewing Pkeets's contribs prior to November, they seem to be an excellent contributor. Looking at some of the diffs in the OP, Pkeets's recent conduct doesn't seem as bad as the framing would suggest. Some of their edits may have battle ground qualities, but no "worse" than many of the left leaning editors in the AP2 arena ('Worse' is in air quotes as I wonder if one of JFS's fave quotes currently applies to AP2. ) That said, Pkeets does seem to have been pushing a PoV concerning Trump's election fraud line that is contradicted by the vast majority of WP:RS. Even if they want to retain those beliefs privately, they should recognise that advancing said view is a lost cause on Wikipedia. If they can't do that, a short topic ban might be an efficient way to stop further disruption. Lastly, I applaud IHateAccounts for taking this to ANI rather than going straight to AE. Good to give Pkeets a chance to moderate their editing after some community comment, without necessarily having a sanction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism only account User:JGStokess[edit]

Blocked indefinetely by Cullen328. (non-admin closure) Heart (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism only SPA account inserting material which violates WP:BLP into LDS related articles. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, the user must be properly warned before they can be blocked. Also, I think AIV is the more appropriate venue for vandalism-only accounts. Also, when making a report on ANI, you must notify the subject! Thanks and an admin will be with you shortly! (Non-administrator comment) Heart (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
A warning is not required when a new editor is committing severe violations of BLP policy. I have indefinitely blocked this editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The account is also impersonating Jgstokes, an editor in good standing who is an LDS church member. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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