Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036

Wikipedia main page needs urgent (brief) administrator attention

See the talkpage on the glaring omission of VE Day from today's main page, which ought to be added in. I'm putting this here because, well, it's today, but no administrators have acted on the page. Ditto for another issue raised in the same place. GPinkerton (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• All fixed! GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia main page needs urgent (brief) administrator attention

See the talkpage on the glaring omission of VE Day from today's main page, which ought to be added in. I'm putting this here because, well, it's today, but no administrators have acted on the page. Ditto for another issue raised in the same place. GPinkerton (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• All fixed! GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Probable meatpuppetry, solicitations for paid editing, edit warring by Queenplz

In this ANI, I describe multiple suspicious conduct issues surrounding the Wikipedia editor, "Queenplz".

On 9 April 2020, a discussion thread was created in an Asian nationalist subreddit called "Asian Identity", in which multiple users, including one who claims to have been banned from Wikipedia, solicited help to edit Wikipedia articles, which they said were being edited by white supremacists.

Google archive of suspicious Reddit thread:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2JLU3Pb2MFEJ:https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Removeddit archive of suspicious Reddit thread, in which usernames are visible:

http://removeddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/

^ As we see in the link, the creator of the thread wanted help regarding a dispute between Qiushufang and Gun Powder Ma. And in the comments section, one user solicits help regarding the Genghis Khan article, because he is banned from Wikipedia, and in his opinion, the "physical appearance" section in Genghis Khan's article makes him seem like a "white dude".

A couple of hours after that Reddit thread was created, Qiushufang began making numerous edits on the "physical appearance" Genghis Khan article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&offset=20200410231336&action=history

On April 11th, YMblanter undid the damage Qiushufang did to the article, and promptly locked it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&offset=20200422014441&action=history

On April 11th, the account "Queenplz" is created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Queenplz

His April 22nd user page reads:

"Hi, I'm from the U.S and I enjoy researching about history and genetics. I promise to make a much more better efforts in contributing to wikipedia by doing extentive research and allowing everyone to review it. My goal is to present research findings to end controversial disputes in the most useful way. One of my dream is to have a source of income from wikipedia, it would mean a lot to me."

Queenplz's first edit was an edit request (again, Ymblanter had locked the Genghis Khan article) in which he casted doubt on reliably sourced information about Genghis Khan's physical appearance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genghis_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=950250931

Ever since then, he has persistently made POV edits to the "physical appearance" section of the Genghis Khan article, all revolving around sources that mention his purported reddish hair and blue-green eyes. It is clear from his edits that Queenplz is disgusted by this info, and desperately wants to make it go away; in spite of the fact that it is reliably sourced.

I propose the following:

1.) Queenplz is the individual in the reddit thread who claimed to be banned from Wikipedia, and solicited help from others to edit the Genghis Khan "physical appearance" section, and has indeed received helped from meatpuppets in attempting to censor the article.

2.) Queenplz may be receiving financial support in order to continue his edits on Wikipedia.

3.) The coincidences of his registration just hours after the reddit thread and the edit war, his obsessive focus on the Genghis Khan article from his inception, and also his solicitation for financial support, are all extremely suspicious. The odds that he is not the individual in the Reddit thread who admitted to being banned are exceedingly low. If we assume he is that individual, Queenplz is an unidentified ban evader. If we assume he is not that individual, we must assume he is one of his meatpuppets.

With such marks against the character of Queenplz, can there really be any doubt that his presence here is contraindicated? - Hunan201p (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say Hunan201p had already accused me two times as sockpuppet/meatpupperty of 4 wikipedia accounts and I've been all checked and all cleared. Two times he reported and I've been checked to be unrelated with the others. This time he reported me because I reported him of doing neutral point of view (and original research) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.

Unable to answer the questions I asked of him six times he decides to report me again.

Hunan201p accusations are ridicolous and always over the top, he has a strong history of edit warring and edit dispute with many editors, even against many admins and respected ones (if you want I can show a long list of disputes, arguements, threats, reports he made on admins and respected editors). He has threatened and reported respected editors and admins before but since this is about myself, I would focus only on myself.

The first time was here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang/Archive

First time he accused me to be a sockpuppet of Qiushufang , he also accused me of being Huaxia, by using his out-of-nowhere evidence of aznreddits, which I have no idea what he was talking about.

To me is very strange, he claims I was Qiufushang or that I was working for him, if that's the case why my 1st and 2nd post against him is suggesting that removes all the pictures he posted. Qiufushang was blatantly helping Hunan201p by providing evidence of pictures of Mongols with red hair (or redder than typical) with blue eyes, I removed the edits of Qiufushang and than all of sudden he reported me as his sockpuppet ( the disccusion can be seen in sockpuppet investigation ) and past history.

All his accusations about Aznreddit nonsense was already mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation of Qiufushang

Second time, he reported Shinoshijak, accused him of being warriorcreaterfighters, and later tried to link me up with being him (Hunan201, also didn't informed me), result is I'm not related to the user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive

This time is the third time, he nows accuses me of being something else ONLY BECAUSE I reported for him for making many neutral points of views (including original research) edits on the Genghis Khan physical appearance. He cannot answer the questions I asked him for 6 times, because he knows what is he is doing is indeed original research and neutral point of view.

Why are you trying to do the same thing in the first sockpuppet inveestigation. You already accused me of being a meatpuppetry/sock puppet of Qiufushang and the others.

There are several articles about being paid to edit for clients, companies. So I edited that on April 22nd, had no idea I wasn't allow to edit it on the user's page, as I now that it encourages editors to compete.

Please stop making false accusations with such a ridicolous claim, your known for reporting everything that opposes your opinion. Queenplz (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"I would like to say Hunan201p had already accused me two times as sockpuppet/meatpupperty of 4 wikipedia accounts and I've been all checked and all cleared. Two times he reported and I've been checked to be unrelated with the others." < - This ia false. Queenplz has never been cleared of meatpuppetry, only of physical proxikitybto Qiushufang. Callanecc [1]| inconclusively closed the SPI investigation] after it received almost no input from any other admins for days, and encouraged me to post more behaviorval evidence.

Another mark on Queenplz's character is that he failed to properly notify me of his noticeboard discussion that he mentions above, but failed to provide an accurate link for. As he admits, he never notified me on my talk page of the complaint he filed against me. Another user actually did that for me, days after it was filed. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to look at this, because the talk page of the articles is several screens of mutual bad faith accusations, and all users ping me apparently thinking I am going to take their side. I can not really even understand what all of this is about.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to add, Hunan201p is engaged in an edit war on Genghis Khan. At least five artcle reversions in 24 hours.

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

I just placed a 3RR warning on their talk page [7]. I have also placed a warning on the article talk page[8]. I also warned another editor that they might have surpassed 3RR in that same paragraph. It is just I am not sure about that at the moment. Hunan201 is also on the edge of once again violating 3RR on the Yellow Emperor page

1. [9],
2. [10]
3. [11]

It looks like El C has now locked down the page (Yellow Emperor) - [12], [13]. I am uninvolved and went over to the Genghis Khan talk page and edit history to check things out based on the opening complaint. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, Hunan201p has been blocked twice recently, both times for edit warring - on January 26, and January 29, 2020 [14]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Community Sanctions on pre-1800 Chinese and Mongolian History

I honestly don't know where to begin with this mess. There are too many new accounts and the issues are popping up on quite a few pages across the area of pre-1800 Chinese history. To even try to sort this out, I am proposing that we impose standard community sanctions on pre-1800 Chinese and Mongolian History. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose That's an absolutely massive span of history. It's a bit overkill for what seems to be focused attention on what looks like maybe 200 or 300 year span surrounding the Yuan dynasty, but almost solely focused on Genghis Khan and Yellow Emperor. Pre-1800s Chinese and Mongolian history covers at least 4000 years (Xia–Qing) of articles. There are serious issues here, for sure, but the scope seems too large relative to the current situation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  @MarkH21: Would you be okay with 1200 to 1400? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe. Can you give more examples of articles where there is frequent recent disruption? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I may not be seeing the whole problem here. Wouldn't it be best just to deal with the edit warring as it happens? There was ongoing talk page conversation on the Genghis Khan talk page, although it was simultaneous with the edit warring. And then it seems a conversation began on the Yellow Emperor page after it got locked down. If it's just a couple of editors that are out of control, then I think it's best to just deal with their behavior. I haven't checked either page since, but I think it is kind of quiet. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, maybe some sanctions on some pages. I just looked up this "new" editor who has Wikipedia lingo down for dealing with articles, and who has ripped through some articles claiming Fringe, NPOV, WEASEL and so on. See the contributions for the month of April [15]. Of course I guess the account was created on 7 April. If a 1RR was in place that might help. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Or even some kind of strong encouragement to discuss on talk page first before major edits and doing without the "FRINGE, NPOV, WEASEL, VANDAL and so on in the edit history. I don't know if that is possible. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  It seems to me that most of the disruption is at articles like Genghis Khan, Blond, Timur, Xianbei, and Yellow Emperor, solely revolving around the physical description of Mongolic and Chinese peoples. It seems to be a very specific issue that might benefit from some centralized discussion like an RfC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  MarkH21 I think you have nailed it. You have defined the issue and I agree this type of editing will benefit from setting up RFCs. I wish I thought of that.---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Unhelpful. This process just makes things more complicated. If users are absolutely violating policies and guidelines then they need to be blocked accordingly. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I understand the community sanctions sentiment, I think MarkH21 has defined the real problem and has suggested a workable solution. Of course, if there is something I'm not seeing just say so and that issue or those issues can be discussed as well. I don't have a problem with that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User: 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A/High Speed 2

Clear case of incredibly disruptive editing, accusing editors that are trying to maintain the neutrality of an article regarding a politically controversial topic of being astroturfed. The anon doubling down on the accusations after being warned shows a complete lack of respect for the rules of civility. Sceptre (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The editor 'Sceptre' changes referenced text giving no reason why. He also deletes text in the open forum talk page he does not like. He should be banned ASAP. He is not conforming to the ethos of Wiki at the best. I suspect he is a paid astroturfer - HS2 Ltd released figures of many £100,000 for internet activity. He has an agenda for sure. This form of behaviour cannot be tolerated in Wiki, giving Wikipedia a bad name. Irrespective he has to banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m still chasing up money from Ferring Pharmaceutical after they gave Jo Swinson a time machine and told her to change her party’s policy four years ago, you think I have the time to do another astroturfing job? </sarcasm> (also, not for nothing, but of the three common singular third person pronouns, you go for the worst one…) Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have done NOTHING wrong, you are making out I have. Sceptre is changing the article, deleting text with refs, giving no reason whatsoever. Also he is deleting sections of the talk page. Deleting open discussion because it does not follow an agenda? This is totally unacceptable contrary to what Wikipedia is about. Sceptre is clearly at fault, not me. he must be banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Sceptre: Is there is a reason it seems you're reverting the IP unambiguously? Their 400kph seems to be supported by a source and many of the other edits seem to just be editorial choice of language. @2A01...A754: Quit with the accusations of being a shill. That will get you blocked. Sceptre is not a paid shill. They are personal attacks and personal attacks may be removed from talk pages.--v/r - TP 15:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  (ec w/TParis) IP, you would be better off taking the discussion about the merits of Sceptre's edits (or any others) to Talk:High Speed 2, but please don't accuse people of astroturfing. We have a guideline called Assume Good Faith, which editors are expected to follow. It's also worth pointing out that Sceptre has a very long track record in this community; it's unlikely in my opinion that somebody would make 75,000 edits over 15 years in a variety of subject areas just to cover up an agenda regarding a railway line which hadn't even been proposed when they started editing. I respectfully suggest that you're more likely to get a result if you calmly and concisely explain on the talk page what content you feel should be added or restored along with the relevant references. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sceptre's 75,000 edits are meaningless, it is what he is doing now. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that this IP range has a track record in incivility and disruptive editing which earned a 72-hour block, and is without doubt the same anonymous editor moving between IP addresses. I have no particular feeling either way about these recent edits, but the accusations of "astroturfing" and generally insulting language ("salivating train spotters") should be noted. Cnbrb (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadly editors are receiving more uncivil commentary from this IP user (who switches IP address each time). Anyone who disagrees on an editorial point is repeatedly being called a "fanboy", "astroturfer" and a "trainspotter". Som recent diffs:

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]

Despite the incivilty, attempts were made recently to accommodate the IP's editorial concerns with an RFC (10 March 2020). The IP editor emerged from a block to insert a snide remark about "train spotters salivating". Everyone's been very patient and several have attempted to engage in dialogue, which is proving to be a waste of time and energy. This has gone on long enough. Given the a track record in incivility and disruptive editing I would like to request that the IP range be blocked.Cnbrb (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Total nonsense. I do no change IP addresses. It is the one that comes out. Wikipedia has a reputation of being hijacked by groups with agendas. That has clearly happened on the HS2 article.

The article was being hijacked for sure. It was far too pro HS2, not being balanced. Anything that they perceived that the article was not putting HS2 as some sort of rail saviour was changed radically or deleted. It was not just HS2 fanboys obsessed with trains, I quite rightly suspected astroturfing. The only uncivilised attitudes I got were from you and your other sidekick. BTW, over the years I have contributed about 15-20% to the article - a substantial chunk. The fact remains that free speech was severely compromised on the talk page and text deleted with references without reason in the article. Strangely I ever saw you object to any of that.

I have doubts about you, attacking me openly when it is clear I have done NOTHING wrong. The person under the spotlight is Sceptre, not me - he was the one deleting sections in the Talk page and text with references without any reasons given. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I strongly suggest you take retract your earlier statement accusing Sceptre of being a paid editor: I suspect he is a paid astroturfer. Second, stop calling people "fanboys" and "obsessed." Those are personal attacks.

Finally, there is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia. Comments may be removed from Talk pages if they are not directly related to editing the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, disruptive behaviour, misuse of templates and harassment from User:AussieLegend

AussieLegend has become increasingly disruptive in his edits on the Sydney page as well as in his behaviour in general towards other well meaning editors. Most notably, he has been targetting and harassing Ashton 29. This started when Ashton 29 made some good faith edits on the page, to which AussieLegend retaliated by constantly reverting his edits (as well as the edits of other editors as well) to how he believed the page should be, which is classified as edit warring.[20][21][22][23][24] From this, AussieLegend then proceeded to spam warning templates on Ashton 29's talk page without substantiated evidence, which was disruptive in proper discussion and a direct misuse of templates[25][26][27][28][29]. This also fell under harrassement and stalking, as pointed out by Cjhard where AussieLegend stalked all of Ashton 29's edits including on pages he was not previously involved in and critiqued his edits and sent notice templates without any evidence to back his claims [30].

Furthermore, when I warned AussieLegend of his edit warring and behaviour on his talk page, he retaliated and once again misued a warning template, this time against me [31] without backing any of his false allegations and accusations. He then tried to threaten an apology from me [32][33] before once again retaliating and becoming disruptive in behaviour towards proper discussion by misusing a warning template against me [34]

Additionally, AussieLegend along with another editor have also been directing personal attacks against Ashton 29 and any other editor they disagree with. AussieLegend is noted for falsely and mockingly describing Ashton 29 as having "a temper tantrum" and that "he doesn't care" [35] as well as a personal attack against me by making false allegations without any evidence [36] [37]

To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information so that it supports his own agenda, most notably by deleting editors from a list of people who support a photomontage on the Sydney talk page in his own opposition to the photomontage[38], to which he once again made another personal attack against me when i responded to this, by making false accusations that I was manipulating the information, when it was in fact him [39]. - Cement4802 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised at Cement4802's actions. He has constantly been accusing other editors of making personal attacks while doing so himself. No doubt he has seen this edit by me where, at his own request, I started compiling a list of his various attacks on other editors, mostly HiLo48 and I. I earlier raised this discussion on this very page and notified Cement4802 even though he was only tangentially associated with the Ashton 42 problems at the time. His response was to set upon me in that discussion,[40] making baseless allegations that he continues to this day. Under the assumption that this discussion is going to be given as much attention as the other one, this is all I am going to say for now. If anyone wants more, I'm happy to post a lot more. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This incident is here on this noticeboard for one reason alone - the total absence of any effective Administrator response to the thread up near the top of this page titled - User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks. If an Admin has the energy to look through that discussion, and the one it was about in the first place at Talk:Sydney, they will see the mess this has come from. It needed much earlier Admin intervention, and that didn't happen. What's happening? Are the Admins all in quarantine? HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the issues with AussieLegend on the Sydney article need to be in two AN/I threads, especially considering the block proposal already contained in the top thread. However, AussieLegend's behaviour recently has gone so far beyond the usual wikilawyering and stonewalling and descended into full-blown battleground behaviour, wikistalking and harassment. It might be best to close the dumpsterfire report up top and find a resolution here. At the least, AussieLegend should be banned from interacting with Ashton 29. Cjhard 11:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Aussie Legend has a tendency of edit warring, but then accusing others of edit warring. Anyone who accuses, him is apparantly a harassier or wiki-stalker. In my opinion, egos like his should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B99C:AC00:D17B:1AE4:C986:C0B3 (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note that this is anonymous troll who has posted to my talk page previously. Mind you, I am suspicious that it could also be one of two editors who have posted here recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend That's a blatant false accusation to make mind you. Going by you and HiLo's definition, that's a personal attack - Cement4802 (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What is false? Should I open an SPI case? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that I don't need to open an SPI case. The range has been blocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend's full response; see summarized response below

AussieLegend's response part 1 I wasn't going to bother this but given Cement4802's persistent attacks I may as well, even if nobody reads it: Most notably, he has been targetting and harassing Ashton 29 - All of the warnings left on Ashton 29's talk page were warranted and are explained in the discussion above. AussieLegend retaliated by constantly reverting his edits (as well as the edits of other editors as well) to how he believed the page should be, which is classified as edit warring - Let's look at what actually happened shall we? An IP made a number of changes including this which was unsourced. Further it's completely misleading as there has been a lot of building in Sydney recently, especially in the western areas where multiple suburbs continue to be built and expanded. For that reason I reverted the change when I noticed it. Along came Okerefalls 11 minutes later and reverted with the summary "Own research" which made absolutely no sense. After I removed the unsourced content again, Okerefells returned two days later and restored the edit, this time with the summary "The original change by Aussie legend was based on a personal view - 'misleading without any source. Reversion doesnt require a source You are" which again doesn't make sense as the original change wasn't made by me. Yes, I did revert again but that was because the content still failed WP:V. Eventually, Okerefells provided a source for the claim, from over 6 years ago. Had I left it in the article, even with a {{citation needed}} tag attached, in all likelihood it would never be sourced. The IP has not returned and Okerefells edits far too infrequently. Ashton 29 made some good faith edits (#1) - He made some edits, one of which replaced an image of a building with an image of the building in the middle of the surrounding grounds with unrelated buildings surrounding that. I reverted with the summary "The caption is about the war memorial, not the park or the buildings around it. The bigger image of the war memorial is therefore preferred".[41] Instead of then discussing the proposed image on the talk page, he did as he normally does when something he adds is reverted, he reverted with the summary "But AussieLegend, you can still clearly see the memorial. Those who live in Sydney or who are familiar with the city will make no mistake in recognising what the image depicts, and it also gives an indication of the size of the Park and the memorial's proximity to the city centre".[42] To this day he has not attempted to discuss the image. He believes that he does not have to justify his additions and instead that others have to justify their opposition to his additions, as he demonstrated at Hobart when HappyWaldo opposed his addition of a montage.[43] Ashton 29 made some good faith edits (#2) - This was not a good faith edit and the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait." confirms it. Ashton 29 is well aware that there has been no consensus to add a montage and indeed that some of the images that he included have already been opposed. If anything, it was rather WP:POINTy in intent, as explained in the discussion above. AussieLegend then proceeded to spam warning templates on Ashton 29's talk page without substantiated evidence - There is evidence for all the warnings added to Ashton 29's talk page. His various actions have been discussed above. without any evidence to back his claims - This one is actually a bit funny. If you look at Special:Contributions/Ashton 29 you'll see that he marks the vast majority of his edits as minor regardless of how extensive his changes are, so this warning was quite appropriate. He then tried to threaten an apology from me - The diffs presented elsewhere show that the warning left for Cement4802 was entirely justified given his refusal to retract his attacks. He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines. misusing a warning template against me - The diff presented shows the clear indication I gave to not make a retaliatory warning. The warning that I gave was as the result of Cement4802 refusing to withdraw the personal attacks that he made on his talk page in the section titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!" To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information so that it supports his own agenda, most notably by deleting editors from a list of people who support a photomontage on the Sydney talk page in his own opposition to the photomontage - Let's talk about manipulation. Merbabu posted a list of editors who supported or opposed a montage on Talk:Sydney.[44] Cement4802 then decided to manipulate the list by editing Merbabu's post.[45] I removed two of these stating in my edit summary "Neither of these editors have expressly indicated support for a montage on this page. Involvement in selection of images does not constitute support, as has previously been explained."[46] Cement4802 then chose to further manipulate the data by going back over 15 months and adding other names (one editor was added twice!) prompting me to post this, demonstrating his inappropriate manipulation. making false accusations that I was manipulating the information, when it was in fact him - The diffs clearly show the opposite to what Cement4802 claims. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC) AussieLegend's response part 2 Now, in the interest of transparency, since Cement4802 has made some pretty silly claims, I present several diffs demonstrating his actions. He has actually become more of a problem than Ashton 29 (not that Ashton 29 isn't a problematic editor) 07:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Claimed that he not attacked anyone and then threatened me [47] Accuse me of singling him and a few other editors out (?) when in fact nothing like that had happened at all [48] " I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low." This was responded to by Doug Weller who said "when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack.".[49] [50] Accused me of making a personal attack (again). [51] Posted "Several editors that i've been having disputes with over seperate unrelated articles, especially those political in nature, have decided that they'll use their personal grudge against me to come on over to the page to likewise target and harass me." on his talk page in response to Ashton 29. There's some level of paranoia there. If he's having disputes with other editors then maybe the problem is him, not all of them. He then made a false statement about an admin at WP:DRN - There was no admin and the volunteer said nothing about personal attacks. After that, he wrote "I've seen the constant harassement and attacks on your page coming from (talk), and all of his claims have been rightly refuted. It seems he also has a history of harrasement and sending out false, unsubstantiated claims if you look through the archives on his talk page, and i'd suggest that he himself is actually in violation of several wikipedia policies." More baseless allegations along with an indication that he has been wikistalking, in this case by searching through my talk page archives. That though is fairly minor. [52] Improper warning on my talk page. [53] More attacks and threats [54] Another accusation of personal attacks [55] Refusal to withdraw baseless allegations [56] Yet another allegation of making personal attacks [57] Manipulation of data to support his POV [58] Bold face lies rebutted here claiming that I had repeatedly removed names, when I did it precisely once because the inclusion was invalid, and accused me of edit-warring for reverting his initial, incorrect addition in the middle of someone elses post [59] Accusing me of personal attacks and more, per his MO. [60] Accuses HiLo48 of attacking him this time after HiLo48 responded to his baseless claim that editors opposing a montage have always voiced that they're not happy or in support with any of the images being used in the photomontage. HiLo48 was quite correct in saying that is not true. As evidence I posted the following quite a while ago, That brings me to Cement4802's list, which does at least contain two possibilities, File:Sydney skyline from the north August 2016 (29009142591).jpg and File:Sydney skyline and harbour.jpg. The subjects of these are both instantly recognisable worldwide, although the second is probably only recognisable because of the opera house. File:Sydney Opera House At Night 2.jpg is nice, but it's more suited to the opera house's article and might be misunderstood by the average reader.[61] [62] This is actually quite hypocritical as diffs show that Cement4802 is quite adept at attacking editors. [63] And we're back to the first diff where Cement4802 claimed he hadn't attacked anyone and then threatened me in the very same breath I do understand if editors think "TLDR". It's far more than I thought would be necessary. Sorry. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't commit to reading this lengthy report (or the other one pertaining to this dispute), but I would ask participants here to keep it tempered. Also, do we really need two reports about the same dispute? El_C 13:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't need two reports, which was partly the point of my War and Peace addition. The first report has been sidetracked with squabbling since the very first reply, ironically by the editor who opened this section. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This has become absolutely absurd in its extensiveness and ongoing unresolved discussion. Yes, AussieLegend too frequently claims ownership on articles. He rapidly pounces on edits, as if he lays in the wait ready to undo your progress. It's frustrating, it's unwelcome and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I, and Cement4802 (and I guess other people now) will take this everywhere possible for mediation and resolution.Ashton 29 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This latest post by Ashton 29, who is still marking all of his edits as minor, is clearly a reaction to this edit where I changed an image in Newcastle, New South Wales (where I happen to live) to one that better represented Nobbys Head. The image I changed to was actually part of the city's logo at one stage while the other is a somewhat obscure view. Instead of discussing, as always Ashton 29 reverted so I have now invited him to discuss this on the talk page. Ashton 29's reaction is also likely the result of me making this edit that removed a significantly outdated image of the former Newcastle Railway station from a section already crowded with relevant images. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Folks, might I suggest making use of dispute resolution requests (like RfCs), while at the same time letting status quo ante versions remain in place in the meantime? Also, Ashton 29, AussieLegend is right about not marking significant additions as minor edits. El_C 17:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are getting at but after I opened the original discussion here Ashton 29 opened a discussion at WP:DRN, but it was closed because Ashton 29 chose to notify only two of nine listed editors and those two just happened to share his POV and which was WP:CANVASSING. The volunteer at DRN said in his close "moderated dispute resolution with ten editors is likely to be like trying to herd four cats, four sheep, a border collie, and a llama. The way to resolve this dispute that is most likely to be effective will be a Request for Comments."[64] Ashton 29 subsequently opened an RfC but with a very biased, non-neutral question that has resulted in editors supporting a close. I know what the problem is, but I'm not going to say it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, in such a fraught dispute, it's always best to agree on what the RfC question says in advance. I'm not saying run an RfC about what the RfC should say, but a cursory gauging of consensus about that could be a way forward. El_C 17:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. Unfortunately, Ashton 29 chose to skip that and just barrelled ahead with the RfC. It went from me saying "Forming the RfC question would be a problem in itself. It can't simply be "Should this article have a montage?" to this. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, yes, I agree that that RfC question is problematic. It certainly should not be editorializing the author's position. El_C 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So what are you going to do about it El_C? The fundamental reason for there being two out-of-control threads here on the one dispute is a complete absence of any earlier action by ANY Administrator. And this IS an Administrator noticeboard. Please take some action. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the matter of the RfC question has been resolved. El_C 00:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. And the problem is much bigger than the RfC question. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a volunteer. I help when I can. But I am not read in to this dispute and cannot commit to investigate it without a condensed summary. If there is already one, please point it to me, I may have just missed it. El_C 00:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no summary. It's a complete mess. And that's because it's all gone on far too long WITHOUT Admin intervention, DESPITE it having been brought to this page twice and to another Admin page I can't track down at the moment. And if you fail to do anything now, it will just get worse. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, if no summary is provided and none is forthcoming, my involvement is likely to be limited, I'm afraid. If there is an immediate violation that is particularly egregious, however, please feel free to report, here, or to me personally. El_C 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do we have Administrator noticeboards? Aren't they for Admins to notice things? Why has no Admin been near the two massive threads on this matter here before you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, HiLo48. I presume everyone is busy elsewhere. Sometimes there is an acute backlog, especially when —not to belabour the point— it involves a lengthy report/s that lacks a concise summary. El_C 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I repeat, they only became long BECAUSE there was no Admin intervention. And you're not ever going to get an agreed concise summary on matters like this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not looking for agreement, necessarily. Any party may summarize. But this, for example, is obviously not concise enough. I'm looking for the broad strokes, with a few diffs attached for the most noteworthy items. El_C 01:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend a look at the first three posts in the other relevant thread above - "User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks". It's right near the top of the page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, okay, I'll give those a read maybe tomorrow sometime. I just would have wished for a summary that takes the recent block into account. I mean, what else is there to do for the moment? But, sure, will do. El_C 02:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out the background. Ashton 20 was apparently blocked for this edit summary in an edit which adjusted the question in an RfC. I suggest that Talk:Sydney#Request for comment - 30 April 2020 and the following "Support/Oppose for a photomontage" section should be closed to allow a new RfC to be discussed—one with a clear proposal. It's not clear to me what support in the current RfC means, and it certainly would not be clear to an outsider (which is the point of an RfC) what the proposal is. It appears to concern whether this edit at Sydney should be retained (it was reverted). The edit changed the infobox from showing a single image to a montage of seven images. It's not reasonable to continue with the current RfC because someone supporting a montage might want two images, while another wants four, and others want all seven. An RfC requires a concrete proposal ("Should the article display the montage in this edit?") and a neutral question. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I did ask for the RfC to be closed at WP:ANRFC but the request was denied.[65] The RfC is not about this edit specifically. That was a bad faith edit by Ashton 29 who knew that there was an open discussion about a montage and that there was still no consensus to add one. The RfC is about adding any montage and whether appropriate images should be included. Of course, the problem then is determining what is an appropriate image. MOS:LEADIMAGE has been cited but generally ignored. Some of the images that have been proposed have been a hilltop, what appears to be a random building, a church etc, images that don't comply with the intent stated at MOS:LEADIMAGE. In all of the previous discussions (I think it's up to 7) when we get to the question of what images to include, the discussions go silent, which is why I recently raised WP:DEADHORSE. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If there remains problems with the RfC wording, I would suggest you discuss them on the talk page and work towards rewording them. You should not need an admin for that. You shouldn't even need a neutral third party for it. If you all cannot even come up with a suitable RfC wording by yourselves, I'm not sure if any of you should be editing that article or talk page. Clearly something has gone badly wrong. It's not like there are extremely complicated BLP affecting wording issues at play or this is something like that drug pricing mess. If most of you work towards coming up with a suitable RfC wording and 1 or 2 editors refuse to participate or are preventing any path forward, providing evidence of this when it happens will be more useful than simply highlighting that a flawed RfC was opened. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a completely valid suggestion and one with which I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately that was tried previously and failed miserably. Regardless, I'm happy to work toward that again. The situation cannot continue as it has been. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply to post above

• "All of the warnings left on Ashton 29's talk page were warranted and are explained in the discussion above." - You didn't use any evidence on the talk page to back your claims as to how Ashtono 29 was edit warring. If he indeed WAS edit warring (just as much as you were), a single warning would have sufficed. Possibly a second final warning at the extremes (which didn't really happen anyway). However, you felt the need to spam out an excessive number of warnings, to the point where you were posting warnings on his talk page for every edit he was making. You made no effort whatsoever to discuss this on his talk page, but rather you used your method of posting excessive warning templates in the hopes that it would stop all edits from him completely and leave the page in the way YOU believed it should have been.
• "Let's look at what actually happened shall we? An IP made a number of changes including this which was unsourced. Further it's completely misleading as there has been a lot of building in Sydney recently, especially in the western areas where multiple suburbs continue to be built and expanded. For that reason I reverted the change when I noticed it. Along came Okerefalls 11 minutes later and reverted with the summary "Own research" which made absolutely no sense. After I removed the unsourced content again, Okerefells returned two days later and restored the edit, this time with the summary "The original change by Aussie legend was based on a personal view - 'misleading without any source. Reversion doesnt require a source You are" which again doesn't make sense as the original change wasn't made by me. Yes, I did revert again but that was because the content still failed WP:V. Eventually, Okerefells provided a source for the claim, from over 6 years ago. Had I left it in the article, even with a tag attached, in all likelihood it would never be sourced. The IP has not returned and Okerefells edits far too infrequently." - again, you made no effort to discuss these issues with the user on their talk page. It becomes an edit war when you constantly revert edits without consulting them on the talk page and carrying on making reverts regardless if you personally believe the user's edits were wrong or correct.
• "He made some edits, one of which replaced an image of a building with an image of the building in the middle of the surrounding grounds with unrelated buildings surrounding that. I reverted with the summary..."
• "was not a good faith edit and the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait." confirms it. Ashton 29 is well aware that there has been no consensus to add a montage and indeed that some of the images that he included have already been opposed." - once again, you made no efforts to work with Ashton 29 on his talk page and discuss these issues personally with him. Your edits were no more justified than Ashton 29's, and you were just as much in the wrong of making edits without a consensus.
• "The diffs presented elsewhere show that the warning left for Cement4802 was entirely justified given his refusal to retract his attacks. He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines." - my edit warring template was entirely justified, your actions directly fell under the definition of edit warring, and your behaviour was disruptive to proper discourse and diplomacy with other editors. Also in contrast to your behaviour of spamming unsubstantiated warning templates, I posted a single, justified warning template in response to your behaviour, to which you retaliated out of spite by misusing another template on my talk page and making threats for an apology or retraction. This is not in line with Wikipedia's community guidelines.
• "Let's talk about manipulation. Merbabu posted a list of editors who supported or opposed a montage on Talk:Sydney.[144] Cement4802 then decided to manipulate the list by editing Merbabu's post.[145] I removed two of these stating in my edit summary "Neither of these editors have expressly indicated support for a montage on this page. " - I simply added editors who were in support of the photomontage to the list, with evidence and backed up claims, to which you responded by manipulating the data and denying all evidence that was presented, in order to support your own agenda. You then proceeded to move the goalposts about who was allowed to be included in this list, which was never laid out initially, and was an action once again done out of spite in your disagreement with the facts presented and your desire to manipulate data so that it supported your agenda
  

Yet more personal attacks from AussieLegend I've decided to stay relatively quiet in this thread to minimise things from blowing up too much. However, in the several hours since this report was posted, here are a list of personal attacks AussieLegend, on this thread alone:

• "He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines" - another false accusation that falsely diminishes the credibility of my actions, without any evidence. This falls under the definition of a personal attack
• "He has actually become more of a problem than Ashton 29" - I'm not sure if it can get more personal than this. Saying that an editor is "a problem" is way out of line
• "this is (the) anonymous troll who has posted to my talk page previously. Mind you, I am suspicious that it could also be one of two editors who have posted here recently (in reference to me or another editor who has replied to his comment)" - blatant name calling, referring to me or the other editor as a "troll" and blatantly making false allegations that I was indeed the IP address, with again no evidence whatsoever to back his claims.
• "This one is actually a bit funny" (in reference to my actions) - describing my actions in a mocking manner

To add to this, there are also countless occassions where AussieLegend shamelessly accuses me of personal attacks without any substantiated evidence. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Section Break

It should be noted that this is a fairly succinct report, it's just been bludgeoned to death by the subject of the report. I have issue with TParis's closure of the previous report describing my report as 'failed boomerang attempt only supported by those close to Ashton 29'. I have no relationship with Ashton 29, I have never seen Ashton 29 on Wikipedia. The report, replicated in part here, concerned AussieLegend stalking Ashton 29's contributions and making reversions or tiny, unnecessary edits to Ashton 29's contributions on articles AussieLegend has never edited before. It's a serious issue of harassment, with clear, easy to see evidence. Cjhard (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's true, that would indeed be disconcerting. El_C 02:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reads more like a personal attack to me. I have been lied about many times in these discussions, but there's no point going into detail any more. That should have been addressed long ago. I'm still disturbed by the lack of Admin actions on things written on this Administrator noticeboard. Not the fault of the one Admin who has now responded, of course, but the whole Admin system. it's seriously failing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Accusing someone of a personal attack without any evidence, is in itself a personal attack. You claim to be the target of various personal attacks yet here you are dishing it out. - Cement4802 (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the edits by Ashton 29 on 30 April 2020 at Historic preservation shows three edits, each marked minor, and each adding a couple of thousand bytes. People who have persisted doing that (misusing WP:MINOR) have been indeffed. It's not reasonable to justify "stalked all of Ashton 29's edits" by presenting a diff of AussieLegend informing Ashton 29 that minor should not be misused. There is too much stuff above. Can someone please present three reasonable diffs showing that AussieLegend has stalked Ashton 29. If not, would anyone making that claim please strike it. Let's deal with one thing at a time and sort out the next issue after clearing up the stalking claim. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

On pages AussieLegend had never edited before:

• Ashton 29 edits Queen Victoria Market:[66] AussieLegend 17 minutes later: [67]
• Ashton 29 edits Geography of Sydney: [68] AussieLegend 2 hours later: [69]
• Ashton 29 edits Wales House, Sydney: [70] AussieLegend 25 minutes later: [71]

Cjhard (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I formatted the above post. It's clear that AussieLegend is checking Ashton 29's edits—that is obvious from the former's comments at User talk:Ashton 29. The question is whether that is WP:HOUNDING or justifiable checking given the overall picture—the reason contributions pages exist is to allow others to check someone's edits. I don't know the answer to that—those three diffs could be seen as an overreach. However, the solution for that would be for someone (not an opponent) to discuss the issue with AussieLegend. I'm prepared to do that except that on the couple of diffs I've checked, AussieLegend seems to be correct. For example, I just searched User talk:Ashton 29 to see the first three sections where AussieLegend commented. I have not yet examined the background, but looking at the issues suggests a problem that fully justifies checking Ashton 29's edits. The sections are March 2020 (claim of attacking other editors); Disruptive image editing (claim of slow edit war against consensus); and April 2020 (claim of attacking other editors). Given that Ashton 29 has been blocked for 72 hours "for making personal attacks", the first and third claims may be valid. The second claim is very detailed—it really looks as if investigation would confirm the claim. Are you aware of that background and whether that claim is valid? Sooner or later, people have to engage with the underlying issue (article content or talk page behavior that might disrupt article development). Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind; I have definitely been checking Ashton 29's edits. Whether I'm compiling a report for WP:AN3, WP:SPI, WP:ANI, or anywhere else for that matter, I like to be thorough so as to ensure that the case is completely covered and the person is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If I was too thorough here for some people then I'm sorry, but I've never been a fan of the Salem Witch Trials type of prosecution:

She's a witch!

How do you know she's a witch?

She turned me into a newt!

A newt!?

I got better.

Ashton 29 has been editing problematically for a long time (several years!), refusing to respect the opinions of anyone else. I've detailed all of it in the first report so I won't restate it all here. The final straw that broke the camel's back was this bad faith edit, adding his montage to Sydney while there was an open discussion that he knew full well was active. His intent for this as disruptive was evident in the edit summary where he goaded other editors into reacting. That's why I went back through his edits, to compile evidence of his actions to present here, like this sneaky edit against consensus when he added an image that had previously been discussed and opposed on the talk page. He later justified the edit with ""that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know...plus, this image is more populated with people". So yes, I did check his posts to gather evidence that apparently was too much for some people to read. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A summary

My initial post in this section has been deemed too long so I have broken it into two parts. The first is a rebuttal of Cement4802's claims and the second is a list of diffs demonstrating his inappropriate editing and attacks (the attacks he claims that he never makes!).

A summary of the current situation is that, for a number of years, editors like Ashton 29 have been trying to get a montage added to the Sydney. The article is already top-heavy with images. Right now the article has 14,707 words of readable prose and 55 images including the infobox, or 1 image for every 267.4 words. For this reason, and that the images don't really add anything, a montage has almost always been opposed. When there has been some support for a montage, those supporting a montage have pushed for inclusion images that are generally obscure to anyone who is not intimately associated with Sydney, like File:Sydney (AU), Coastal Cliff Walk -- 2019 -- 2335.jpg. All of the discussions "fizzled out" at some point. In July 2019 Cement4802 started a discussion about a montage. That discussion fizzled out in August and restarted in December before going quiet in early January. A few days later, after some convassing,[72] discussion was restarted. The discussion has been on again-off again since then with virtually no progress being made. The pro-montage side has not attempted to provide any alternate images for use in the montage to replace those that have been ooposed and have discounted arguments citing MOS:LEADIMAGE, WP:TOURISTGUIDE etc without providing justification. At the same time, they have become increasingly aggressive in their attitude to other editors. Most of this has come from Ashton 29 but Cement4802 has been increasingly aggressive and this is where we are at now. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cement4802

• Cement4802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the beginning of this report, Cement4802 made a number of claims, all of which I rebutted in the section titled AussieLegend's response part 1. I believe that Johnuniq's discussion above has adequately dealt with the lack of credibility in the claims made by Cement4802 (as defended by Cjhard) but I'd like to address two:

• He then tried to threaten an apology from me - On his talkpage Cement4802 wrote , in a section titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!", "In fact, you have quite a long history of harassement, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and blatantly accusing other editors of actions without any substantiated evidence."[73] This claim, rather ironically, was made without any evidence to back it up. My response was "The warning that you left on my page was completely inappropriate as there was no edit-warring. If you believe there was, then by all means submit a report at WP:AN3. Either do that or remove the baseless allegations that you have made in the above post." No report was ever made at AN3, nor were the allegations removed. Instead, he responded with "please be mindful of the fact that you and another editor have been just as guilty of using personal attacks when you disagree with someone."[74] Again, Cement4802 has provided no evidence of these attacks.
• To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information - I've rebutted this above but if you check the diffs, you'll see how Cement4802 manipulated the list, adding editors who made no explicit claim of support.[75] He even included one editor twice.[76]

Cement4802 has persistently maintained that he has not attacked anyone, however this is not supported by the evidence. He even claimed it in his latest response here: there are also countless occassions where AussieLegend shamelessly accuses me of personal attacks without any substantiated evidence.[77] Clearly he did not bother to look at the diffs presented in AussieLegend's response part 2.

2. [78] " I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low." This was responded to by Doug Weller who said "when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack.".[79]

10. [80] Attacking HiLo48 by alleging HiLo48 made personal attacks

13. [81] Accusing me of personal attacks and more, per his MO.

14. [82] Accuses HiLo48 of attacking him this time after HiLo48 responded to his baseless claim that editors opposing a montage have always voiced that they're not happy or in support with any of the images being used in the photomontage.

16. [83] Attacks me and then claims he makes no attacks.

Of course, at no time has he actually provided evidence to support his claims and has actually tried to avoid doing so,[84] something I felt compelled to comment upon.[85]

I hope this was not too much information. I can address Cjhard later. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cjhard

Cjhard's motivation for involving himself in this matter seems to have been a dislike for HiLo48 as evidenced by his first post.[86] Prior to that there was no involvement in the discussion at Talk:Sydney and he seems to have focussed on me because I share Hilo48's opinion on a montage. One of his earliest edits at the discussion was to support a montage,[87] but then he claimed to be uninvolved.[88] After that he attacked me on Ashton 29's talk page, after I'd warned Ashton 29 about marking all his edits as minor,[89] and then warned me on my talkpage.[90] After that he posted the "failed boomerang attempt" here,[91] all within the period of 1 hour. After that he suggested hatting a section at Talk:Sydney,[92] which I suggested he should do,[93] but he hasn't. He did attack me here, without any evidence, twice. (That's 142 words. Is that still too long?) --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A wall of test

-EEng

• The reason neither side is gaining traction in this dispute is because you all keep posting walls of test. Seriously, I wrote WP:ANI Advice for a reason.--v/r - TP 14:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Seriously? The summary that was asked for was only 241 words and the section on Cement4802 was only 472 words. By comparison, WP:ANI Advice is over 1,400 words. You do realise that you don't have to read both sections if you don't want to? If you think that's a wall of text I'll summarise it for you in a length that might suit you better: "Nobody can agree on a montage, pretty much everything Cement4802 has said can best be described as utter bullshit and the diffs prove that he attacks people!" That's only 26 words. Is that short enough? Should I include some pictures? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm giving you advice on how this board works. But, go ahead, mouth off at me. Let's see how effective that makes you.--v/r - TP 15:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
      • If what I wrote is too long then you need to rewrite WP:ANI Advice because a lot of the advice there is effectively pointless. For example: Only include some diffs - including all relevant diffs is a waste of time, don't explain anything, but if you do make it short enough so that nobody will be able to understand the context. And so on. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @AussieLegend: Should I include some pictures?...How about a montage?  ;) ——SN54129 15:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
      • That would probably be too many images. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

From TP "...you all keep posting walls of test" Firstly, I'll assume you meant "text". Secondly, that's a completely provocative and pointless comment, of the kind that leads me to respond with "BULLSHIT!!!!", but this time I'll just say, that's a lie. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

These outbursts will only lead to a no-action pox-on-both-their-houses close. In fact it's probably at that stage now. Participants can earn points for the future by constructively working at Talk:Sydney to close the current RfC as unhelpful (a support or close outcome would not give a clear outcome) and devise wording for a new proposal (see my suggestion above). I suggest also keeping evidence (off-wiki please) for a future report. Feel free to ping me if any of the significant issues raised above by either side are repeated (for example, flagrant abuse of WP:MINOR after a warning will get action). Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: How do you propose we get the RfC closed? I've already asked at WP:ANRFC and the request was denied. Based on the years of argument about the montage, I don't see anyone on the pro-montage side agreeing to close it. I'd do it myself but I'm involved and even if I did, I expect that the close would be reverted by Cement4802 of Cjhard, even if I cited your comments here. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I closed the RfC and created Talk:Sydney#Drafting an RfC to ask if an RfC should be held and what question would be asked. I added the page to my watchlist and will attempt to keep contributors focused on content issues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Does lying about the behaviour of others count? That's what my immediate preceding comment says. Do you call mine an outburst? Or should I let a blatant lie stand without defending myself? HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

HOLY FUCK. I thought this dispute was dumb when I first read it. Now people are actually arguing that someone pointing out that it's quite likely a reason this dispute is being ignored was because of the walls of text posted is "lying"? Someone please close this discussions now. It has well and truly, completely and utterly jumped the shark. There is almost zero chance for a resolution short of someone doing something stupid, obvious and simple enough to earn themselves a block; when the participants not only cannot see how those very long posts are making outside involvement likely, they accuse people of lying for pointing it out. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The bit I objected to was "...you all keep posting walls of test". The word "all" made it a stupid generalisation, and simply wrong in my case. So yes, it was a lie. If someone wants to calm things down, they need to be a lot more careful with the words they use. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. [94] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48: One of the dumbest arguments I've heard in a while. My involvement in this thread is dumbdone I had considered offering to help in coming up with a consensus wording for the RfC. No longer. There is zero chance I would want to be involved when I'd have to interact with you. Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And that's been the problem here all along. If even one Admin had intervened early in either of the two threads, none of the massive drama would have occured. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Two admins just intervened. You called the first one a liar and told the second one that the first one was a liar. I do not think this will encourage a third admin to intervene. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: The original discussion was open for almost a week before any admin intervened, during which time Ashton 29, Cement4802 and Cjhard's aggression increased as did HiLo48's and my frustration over inaction, while we watched discussion after discussion closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I'll remind you that HiLo48 is not the subject of this ridiculous discussion, I am. I'd be happy for it just to be closed at this point and, quite frankly, I'd rather you not go anywhere near Talk:Sydney because neither you nor anyone else deserves to have to put up with the crap that is dished out by the likes of Ashton 29, Cement4802 and Cjhard. Previous discussions there have been heated but have always just died a natural death. Since January though, the attacks from this "cabal of editors with the same aggressive attitudes and propensity to lie" have become vicious and not something that anyone should have to put up with. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Serious, polite and simple question. Why did it take so long for any Admin to intervene at all. This IS the ADMINISTRATOR noticeboard after all. And please don't use excuses about size of posts, etc. If that truly is a problem, it only became so after many days of Admin inaction. So why so long? HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: It genuinely seems to be the length. Within 24 hours of posting, this thread already had 22,000 characters of text (not including links and markup), including several responses from El C, requests for a condensed summary, and the closure of the other thread with admin action. The longer and more complicated an issue, the longer you should expect it to take the administrators (who are volunteers and busy) to address concerns here. This is especially true if the discussion between the concerned parties is active and constantly increasing in length.

If you were an uninvolved editor, how long would it take you to carefully read: all of this thread + all of its linked diffs + all of the previous thread + all of the previous thread's linked diffs + all of the relevant discussions at Talk:Sydney and other articles? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There was another thread on effectively the same topic, several days earlier. It went for many days without Admin attention. That approach of ignoring by Admins made that thread and this thread worse. This wasn't a new topic. It desperately needed someone to intervene quickly. This isn't about too many words. It's about lack of attention. The too many words came later. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You are being disruptive, noisy, and unhelpful. You behaviour is incendiary and could only earn you a timeout. Admins are volunteers too. They are not paid to sit here and read thousands upon thousands of words of bickering to determine who is right and who is wrong. And with half a dozen walls of text authored by two participants, including one written in the first few hours after the thread was opened, it is small wonder that only a couple of admins have bothered to comment here at all.

With this level of bludgeoning, it would be easier to issue week long blocks to each editor that has contributed more than 1000 words of text to this thread, and another week for every 500 words contributed above that. At the very least, a good few weeks of peace and quiet would follow. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't hurl threats. If you won't address what has been written in BOTH the relevant threads, please just tell us how we can get Admin attention to threads BEFORE they become verbose disaster areas. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Offer a concise summary of the problem, evidenced by a few select diffs, whilst avoiding all unnecessary commentary and particularly anything that can be perceived as an attack, aspersion, or incivility. Refrain from arguing with respondents, which is not to say 'do not reply', but keep any rebuttals calm and brief. Answer - also briefly - any good faith queries. Wait patiently. Basically, the opposite of both this and the previous thread, whose opening post is as long as the lede of any featured article, which I can assure you are much more worthwhile reads. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I started neither of the threads. I was a target of abuse in both (including from Admins), so I joined in, but by that time I obviously couldn't change the ledes. I know your advice is well-intentioned, but it doesn't really help those of us who didn't commence the threads but who who were named there. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If there was a clear imbalance between the two warring sides the issue would have been resolved a long time ago. By "imbalance", I mean one side clearly conflicting with policy or guidelines and the other not, or one side having just a couple of activists versus a significantly larger number on the other. The reason admins have not resolved this battle is that admins have no special tools to resolve a balanced conflict—one side is edit warring and clueless and abusive, and so is the other. I'm not saying the sides are equally out of line, but no one has produced a diff showing a clear imbalance, except for one diff of an abusive edit summary which immediately resulted in a 72-hour block for the author. I imagine there is more than one article involved, but I have only noticed Sydney. The way forward, as I wrote above, is for participants to earn points for the next round by behaving impeccably and hoping the other side slips up. Rather than extending this, it would be better for there to be helpful participation in the discussions at Talk:Sydney regarding the future of the RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just today there have already been 800 words posted discussing why it was too long to read. By comparison, Cement4802's initial post was 357 words. There's some irony. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, FWIW I've read your summary and read Cement's post, and read this section. But since I am unwilling to read how many other thousands of words there are in the other 5 sections I don't feel like I can wade into the dispute in the way that it demands so I just sit back in hopes that Johnuniq, who seems to have done that reading already, is able to bring this to some resolution. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no way I have read all that stuff! I'm just trying to focus people on the future and am watching Sydney and Talk:Sydney for developments. I'm hoping participants can agree on an RfC question then conduct an RfC in an orderly fashion with a subtle hint that it would not be a good idea to be disruptive. For some reason, there is little enthusiasm for discussing the RfC at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is sadly typical of the dispute. Just when it looks like we might be getting somewhere, everything goes quiet. Cement4802 and Cjhard have both gone MIA and Ashton 29 has been quiet since he was blocked (that block is over). If they don't return soon, in a few months it will all start again. @Barkeep49:, thankyou for taking the time to at least read what you have read. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest proceeding with the Talk:Sydney discussion: formulate an RfC and run it. If wanted, ping me to open it once a consensus for wording has emerged, but wait at least 24 hours from now. Also, ping me if this or a similar issue arises in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Will do! --AussieLegend (✉) 09:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This was going to basically be the advice I was going to offer (got busy last night elsewhere). I'm not sure what happened in the interim that Aussie got blocked for disruptive editing. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't get my own thread? :( Cjhard (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive forumshopping by Nehme1499

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nehme1499 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in a highly disruptive WP:FORUMSHOPing exercise at CFD.

In a nutshell:

• On 20 April 2020, Nehme1499 opened Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions, proposing renaming 3 categories
• On 3 May 2020, that discussion was closed as keep
• Only 40 minutes later, Nehme1499 opened 3 new CFD discussions, to discuss each of the categories:
  • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Association_football_central_defenders
  • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Association_football_fullbacks
  • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Association_football_wing_halves

The full history, with diffs, is below. I came here to ask for the new discussions to be closed, but while I was drafting this post, the relevant discussions have just been closed by User:JJMC89.

But please can some uninvolved admin administer to Nehme1499 whatever the current favoured sanction is for those who waste of lots editors' time by trying to WP:GAME the system?

The history:

1. [95] 15:23, 20 April 2020: Nehme1499 creates the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_20#Category:Association_football_positions
2. [96] 00:57, 3 May 2020: Bibliomaniac15 closes that discussion as "keep".
3. [97] 00:58, 3 May 2020: Bibliomaniac15 list the categories at WP:CFDW#Retain, so that the bot will untag the categories.
4. [98]: 01:17, 3 May 2020‎ JJMC89 bot III untags Category:Association football central defenders
5. [99] 01:37, 3 May 2020‎ Nehme1499 retags the category for a new CFD
6. [100] 01:39, 3 May 2020 Nehme1499 creates this new discussion.

In other words, Nehme1499 waited only 40 minutes after the closure of their failed nomination before trying again. (That's why the bot removed the new tag; Nehme1499 acted so fast that the entry hadn't even been removed from WP:CFDW#Retain).

In that new nomination, Nehme1499 didn't even mention the fact that there had been a previous nomination by them of exactly the same proposal had just been closed, let alone link to it ... never mind explain why they brought the same proposal back to CFD after only 40 minutes.

Nehme1499 did this with all three of the categories which they had previously nominated unsuccessfully. None of them mentioned the previous CFD, but all of them mentioned un-notified, poorly-attended discussions on a WikiProject talk page, with links obscured so that many editors missed them. And then Nehme1499 let the discussion run for 18 hours without mentioning the previous discussion.

I don't recall ever seeing such blatant forum-shopping in my 14 years at CFD. I wanted to AGF that it was an error made through lack of competence, but Nehme1499's enthusiasm for links to the WikiProject discussions makes AGF unsustainable: Nehme1499 knew well the significance of linking to prev discussions when they thought those links might help their case, but omitted the links which would have exposed their attempt to WP:GAME the system. the ruse was spotted only 18 hours later[101] by GiantSnowman.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• PS After leaving the ANI notification for Nehme1499,[102] I spotted this exchange where User:GiantSnowman challenged their attempts to game the previous CFD discussion: User talk:Nehme1499#CFD_-_Category:Association_football_positions.

Nehme1499 has made over 25,000 edits in nearly 7 years, so isn't some clueless newbie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I am very concerned by Nehme's actions here. They re-listed the original CFD discussion when it was clear 'do not change the names' consensus, and only reverted (and then grudgingly) after I raised it with them. They then started new discussions immediately after the previous discussions were closed unfavourably for them. GiantSnowman 09:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I also note that their reaction to this discussion was to simply remove the notification... GiantSnowman 09:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

and then grudgingly - my exact words were: "I have no issue in closing reverting the nomination". I don't see how this can be interpreted as "grudging" behaviour.

their reaction to this discussion was to simply remove the notification... - I remove all bot-based notifications from my talk page, be it in this specific instance, or for having nominated an article for GA. Regardless, I only keep user-written messages on my talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: the ANI notification which I posted on your talk[103] was not made by a bot. It was a human edit by me.

That's only a minor distinction, no no consequence. But it is surprising to see that when the rest of your disruption is under scrutiny, you add an assertion as fact of something demonstrably false which you could easily have checked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me rephrase "bot-based notifications" into "notification-based messages". Basically, any notification where there is no further discussion to be had on my talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• It does seem poor to re-post the CfD nomination a short time after it had previously been closed. I spent time looking into the validity of the proposal, when it seems it should not have been re-nominated, but at the very least the re-nomination should have referenced the original. That does appear to be underhanded. Eldumpo (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's time for me to explain what has happened from my point of view. Let's start from the beginning. I was browsing through Category:Association football players by position, when I noticed three categories that, in my opinion, needed renaming: namely, Category:Association football fullbacks (from "fullbacks" to "full-backs"), Category:Association football wing halves (from "wing halves" to "wing-halves"), and Category:Association football central defenders (from "central defenders" to "centre-backs"). What spurred my intent to move these categories was the recent discussion on the WikiProject Football talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Full-back or full back?) regarding the correct manner to write "full-back".

So, I started the discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions). Now, since 7 days had passed, and only one person (@GiantSnowman) had commented, I decided to relist the discussion in order to get more comments. GiantSnowman promptly let me know on my talk page that re-listing one's own nomination "is entirely inappropriate". The closing procedure states: "After seven days, someone will close the discussion according to the consensus that formed or, if needed, relist it to allow more discussion.", so I didn't think that re-listing a discussion where no consensus was formed (or rather, where only one other person was involved) would have been a concern. Regardless, I reverted my re-list and wrote "I have no issue in closing reverting the nomination". I don't really see the "grudge" GS is talking about.

At that point, I asked on the WikiProject Football talk page what their thoughts were regarding these moves. Four people (excluding myself) commented, and all agreed (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player positions categories). However, the previous CfD (with only 2 comments) was still going on, so I waited for it to conclude. Once the discussion terminated, I re-nominated the categories once again, however this time bringing to attention the WikiProject discussion. And here we are.

Regarding @BrownHairedGirl's comments:

• with links obscured so that many editors missed them. I simply piped the discussion link into "WikiProject Football" as such: WikiProject Football. I'm used to piping discussion links in talk pages, so to be accused of "obscuring" the links (with the implication being that my intent was malicious) is simply ridiculous.
• attempt to WP:GAME the system. Let's talk about this. I firmly believe that each person should be involved in their own area of competence. Ergo, someone who's an expert in medicine, and is clueless on (association) football, shouldn't be giving their opinion on the latter's discussion. And vice-versa. If five users out of five in the WikiProject Football talk page discussion supported moving the categories, there must be a reason. Sometimes having "third-parties" (ergo, people who's area of competence is not football) is good, but not in this situation. Also, being accused of "gaming the system" is laughable at best. Gaming? For what purpose? So I can sit on my throne and gaze at my creation (that is, having added a hyphen to "fullback")? Doesn't it seem a bit pedantic?

This is all I have to say about the matter, for now. I hope my comments have cleared up the situation. If there are any more comments, or issues, I'll be glad to explain my point of view. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Nehme1499: Thank you for commenting here. However, your responses only strenghten my concerns.

1. Taking an admin role of closing or relisting a discussion started by yourself is a non-no, other than when WP:CSK applies. WP:INVOLVED apples applies to any editor performing admin functions whether or not they are an admin.
2. Having opened a discussion at WP:CFD, your decision to open another discussion at the WikiProject was blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping. What you should have done was to post at the WikiProject a neutral notification about the CFD discussion, e.g. by using {{cfd-notify}}. Instead, you chose to have the discussion in two places, which is a breach of WP:MULTI.
3. Your decision to open fresh CFDs immediately after the first one closed was also blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping. You were asking the community to keep on discussing the issue until you got the answer you wanted.
4. Having open the fresh CFDs, you compounded the blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping by failing to link to the previous discussion. The result was that several editors (including me) wasted a significant amount of time on discussions which were procedurally closed as soon as your forum-shopping was exposed.
5. I accept that your failure to provide clear links to the WikiProject discussions may have been the result of incompetence rather than malice. Whatever the cause, it impeded the discussion and wasted the time of other editors. It's sad to see that even at this stage you don't acknowledge the problem.
6. There is no policy basis for your statement I firmly believe that each person should be involved in their own area of competence. Ergo, someone who's an expert in medicine, and is clueless on (association) football, shouldn't be giving their opinion on the latter's discussion.
   The en.wp policy is that decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS, and there is no policy giving extra weight to self-proclaimed experts. Editors who have such expertise can demonstrate it in discussion by reasoning and evidence, which you signally failed to do. Instead, you misrepresented the WikiProject discussions, and posted "evidence" in the form of crude searches which multiply failed to observe the guidance in WP:Search engine test. Your did not demonstrate your expertise; you on the contrary, you made a bunch of assertions were either evidenced or demonstrably false.

I had hoped that you might come here and say something to the effect of "sorry, I screwed up multiply, and have learnt from this; sorry for wasting everyone's time". If that had been your response, then this ANI thread would almost certainly have been closed as "lesson learnt, no action needed".

But instead you express no regret for the time-wasting and disruption, you openly mock the concerns as laughable at best, you give no indication that your forum-shopping approach will change, and you assert your own personal view of process over long-standing core policies. And that sarcastic remark about sit on my throne and gaze at my creation is fairly contemptuous too.

I don't see how anything short of sanctions is likely to prevent a recurrence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BHG is completely correct that the expertise comment is a total non-starter. When taken too far, it’s literally one of the WP:WIAPA main points:

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?"

— MarkH₂₁^talk 20:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't ever recall seeing a discussion at cfd closed as 'keep' and then being relisted within even a month (never mind 20 minutes). It is certainly disruptive and a waste of editorial time. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_20#Category:Association_football_positions was listed at WikiProject Football (by Giant Snowman), gained no support and 2 opposes. As a footballer, I don't care whether it is centre-back, centre-half, central defender, with or without hyphens or spaces, and I expect this indifference is not restricted to me. Oculi (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• (ec) Reading thru this, with only basic knowledge of assoc. football, I see an editor who saw an inconsistency with the articles and the cats. The articles use hyphens, the cats. do not; I have no idea which is correct or if there is a divide on usage. The CfD generated minimal participation, all against; the WP talk page had very low interest, all in favor. None really cleared up for me which way is correct and why. That tells me either this needs a more in depth argument and discussion before any proposal is made, or no action is needed due to indifference.
  I then see an editor who wants to fix it and fix it now, without regard to protocol, and I see other editors very much invested in protocol. I don't think sanctions are needed, but I think understanding the other person's approach would help. This appears to be a one-off dispute rather than a continued disruption, correct? Nehme botched the relist, and maybe screwed up the forumshopping, but is there really more to be done here? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. I was just waiting for an uninvolved editor to express my thoughts. Did I mess up with WP:FORUMSHOPing (of which I just found out the existence)? Yes. Did I mess up by re-listing the discussion so quickly? Now I found out, yes. Is this whole thing necessary? No. As @Bison X pointed out, I was just trying to "fix" something as soon as possible, in order to have my mind clear and move on. What I didn't account for were the whole rules and protocols that went with this. It's obvious that what I have done won't be repeated again (regardless of whether I believe I was in the right or wrong). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Nehme1499: your response to concerns expressed here about your conduct has been to laugh at them ... so no, it is not in any way obvious that what [you] have done won't be repeated again.
  If you give an assurance that you won't do this again, then we can consider that. But so far you have chosen not to give any such assurance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I assure that what has happened in these past few days won't be repeated in the future. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• If you want to assure people of your good intentions, then evading responsibility ("what has happened" rather than what you did) and using the passive voice ("won't be repeated") isn't a good way to go about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please tell me that you are joking... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am not joking at all. I am asking you to demonstrate your good faith by using simple, direct words rather than evasions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say a small piece about the situation. I don't think sanctions are necessary at this junction, because I don't think this has been a repeated behavior (as far as I know). However, @Nehme1499:, the reason why BHG has been so stern with you is because there was a profound lack of transparency in your dealings. Any time you want to discuss about an issue, it's on you to make sure people know all the discussion that's been going on about that issue, whether or not it helps your case. It's on you to centralize the discussion in one proper place according to established procedure, using neutral notices on other talk pages/WikiProjects to let others know about where that discussion is taking place. When you failed to do that, it exposed that you were fixed on some course of action that you think is right and needs to be done that way at all costs.

Those of us who have been on Wikipedia long enough know that such a mindset can only lead to major hurts down the road. The relisting too fast thing may be a violation of guidelines (that doesn't bother me personally), but the lack of transparency is a violation of what it means to build consensus. That's what she wants you to acknowledge, and what I hope you would acknowledge about this current situation. bibliomaniac15 19:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bibliomaniac15. Transparency is crucial to consensus-building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes, if anything Nehme1499 has always seemed pretty grounded to me, he likes a natter, nothing wrong with that. There are a hell of a lot of policies on wikipedia, I wouldn't expect any one to know ever policy inside out, that's ridicules, I think you could of brought up this on his talk page. I don't see this as a real issue for ANI. Govvy (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I would expect an editor's of Nehme1499's experience to be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP. It's also WP:COMMONSENSE not to just hammer away asking the same question until you get the answer you want. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You shouldn't assume that every experienced editor knows WP:FORUMSHOP. I didn't even know about that one till last year!! It's always good to have common sense, I am pretty sure Nehme1499 knows now what he did wrong. The other problem I see is you're going in to too much detail, keep things concise and to the point. Too much detail can put a lot of experience editors off from even trying to help. I read through above and I still think you have over-reacted. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated unsourced edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This editor refuses to respond to my descriptive edit summaries (here, here & here), my personal pleas as well as warnings on their talk page by repeatedly adding unsourced questionable info, specifically unsourced dates. Examples of these disruptive edits can be seen here, here, here, here & here. While English may not be their first language it seems clear to me that they are able to communicate but have chosen not to. I have been extremely patient with this editor as can be seen on their talk page but it's becoming obvious that they have no intention of discussing these issues with me, nor do I think they have any intention of reliably sourcing their edits. Please could a willing admin cast an eye. Robvanvee 07:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is acceptable but in the interest of having an admin address this concern, I am repeating my request. Please could an admin take a look. Robvanvee 11:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robvanvee, we had a similar, but less clear case recently, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Persistent_edit_warring_by_Koavf. In a nutshell, creating (a) discussion(s) on the article talk page(s), and inviting the disruptive user to the discussion(s), can be an alternative approach, as described in the essay WP:DISCFAIL. In this case here, however, the persistent addition of material openly taken from user-generated sources like Discogs (red entry at WP:RSP) made the decision easy. Enforcing a proper discussion with someone editing on a mobile device can be challenging. The indefinite block will make sure that the user properly addresses the issues and learns about the edit warring policy before being able to return to editing.

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That will be my go to method from now on. Thank you very much for your helpful explanation and assistance with this issue ToBeFree! Robvanvee 13:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Anytime. Thanks for the kind feedback and the report. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:AFD/USA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) CJK09 (talk · contribs)

Earlier today, North America aka NA deletion sorted Scott E. Langum at Deletion sorting United States. Langum is from Spokane, Washington. He works for the United States Senate. US deletion sorting says quite clearly- 'Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs.

Langum is from Washington state. It is very clear that is a state of origin. So he would only go at Washington state deletion sorting.

NA wrote the guidelines for the page. They are his word for word. Check here[104] There is an edit war occurring at the page, I admit. He keeps attacking me with claims of WP:OWN.[105] [106] But NA is ignoring the very guidelines they wrote. WP:DISRUPT anyone if an editor can't follow the guidelines they wrote?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why have you violated 3RR and why are you forumshopping? The AN3 report remains outstanding. El_C 18:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping. Both editors I'd come here before the AN3 report....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The AN3 report was submitted at 14:18 — the ANI one at 14:21. Fair enough, I suppose there could have been an overlap. Still, WilliamJE has been partially blocked for violating 3RR. El_C 18:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note – I have already initiated a thread at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page, Here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the editor who drafted those guidelines understands the intent behind those guidelines? We're supposed to follow the spirit, not the letter, of rules here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, your ownership of that page is single-handedly making a deletion category that could be very useful, near useless. It shouldn't be necessary to watchlist 50 state deletion categories (most of which I don't care about) to see the federal/national-level stuff (which I do care about). It's pretty clear in this case that the article subject is relevant at a federal level, not a state level. No one cares that he was born in Washington, it's completely irrelevant to his career. CJK09 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• • You're hysterically funny. Here you are arguing[107] ignore all rules is what is going on then you're saying above the editor knows the intent. Which is it, an interpertation or IAR? You can't argue both....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Take your pick. Either one works and I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive. NA1K knows the intent of the policy that he wrote, so he feels justified in ignoring the letter of the law in this instance. Makes perfect sense to me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Apart from the forum shopping, it is clear that a liaison to the United States Senate should be sorted not just in the category for the state he grew up in, but in the USA category as well. --MrClog (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Again, not forum shopping. I posted here 3 minutes after NA posted at AN3. I said both here[108] and here[109] what I was planning to do....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note – The report to the Edit warring noticeboard resulted in WilliamJE being blocked from editing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America page for two weeks (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• I have that page in my watchlist and I am a member of the deletion sorting project and I think this is one of the lamest edit wars. I think Northamerica1000 and CJK09 should have started a talk page discussion before adding it back. During a dispute, the status quo version is preferred per WP:QUO. But also, William shouldn't have continued editwarring.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• I like William and have justifiably defended him on several occasions in recent months. But William, you need to dial it back on this one. This so very much not a hill worth dying on. I agree with NA1K that a federal politician is more relevant to the nation as a whole than to his home state and I don't care at all if the letter of the policy says otherwise. Even if NA1K is 100% wrong, it really doesn't matter. It's just a delsort page. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang topic ban proposal

(Not sure if I'm allowed to do this as an involved party. I've been away from Wikipedia for awhile until very recently. Feel free to remove this if inappropriate.)

I propose a topic ban for User:WilliamJE, prohibiting edits relating to categorization of XfD discussions, due to persistent disruptive ownership behavior. CJK09 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@CJK09: WilliamJE is currently blocked for their 3RR violation. In the thread above a history of "persistent disruptive ownership behavior" hasn't been established; is a TBAN really necessary at this point or can we wait to see what happens when they are no longer blocked? VQuakr (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE's block log is getting long. Is there a pattern here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, 7 edit-warring blocks (3 in the last two years) for one user is pretty striking. I can’t tell how much of the disruption is related to XfD sorting though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Close this discussion the user has been blocked for editwarring by El_C. There is no reason for a topic ban.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  @SharabSalam: The editor was only partially blocked by El_C from editing a single page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued mass changes against consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

75.145.78.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their mobile device 2601:1C2:4100:EC0:494F:A99B:31C8:61B8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for some reason keep changing RCA --> RCA Records in the infoboxes of several David Bowie and related articles. This goes against consensus at Template:Infobox_album#studio. The IP never responds to requests on their talk page. This has been reported to AIV a few times, and the user is temporarily blocked, but usually returns a week or so later to make the same edits. Is there any additional action that can be taken to avoid us having to change these back every couple weeks? Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now blocked the two IPs for one month each. Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment and continous vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Urabura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Harassment against me and vandalism by removal and change of content per POV; intentionally creates in-text sandwiching of images (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images). Has been sufficiently warned, user is disrespectful in a harassing manner and made personal attacks, refuses to engage in discussion prior to implementing changes and persists on unconstructive edits. User has been blocked before and has a history of vandal-like activity. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I noticed Urabura sometimes addresses you in Polish, Oliszydlowski, on the pretense that you will understand it better (though there's nothing wrong with your English that I can see) — and, perhaps, also so that the admins won't understand, though that is unspoken. We do have access to translation tools, though, and Urabura's secret Polish message here to Oliszydlowski means in English, per the Bing translator: "I will write you in Polish so that you can understand better. Man you have something wrong with the psyche, you started this discussion yourself and you attack me, and now you write that I am attacking you and that you do not want to discuss. Do you have schizophrenia?" Questioning another user's mental health is utterly inappropriate. I have blocked Urabura for a week for egregious personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 00:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Taunting by "retired" user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several days ago, Dudewithafez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly known as "KazekageTR", went on a massive WP:CANVAS spree of about 40 Turkish users to back him up in a dispute regarding a picture of the Armenian Genocide in the Turkey article [110]. Several of these users responded, and the article had to be protected as a result of their edit-warring. I filed a thread at ANI [111], at which time KazekageTR asked to change his username to "Dudewithhafez" and then "retired" [112], presumably to avoid a block. Today it seems he has decided to come out of "retirement" and is taunting me on several talkpages [113] [114] [115]. Khirurg (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In the last report, despite his massive canvassing in Turkish to Turkish users on en.wiki, this editor did not even get a warning. It is no coincidence why he feels so brazen about it. Dr. K. 22:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that is over now. Indeffed. El_C 22:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El C. Dr. K. 23:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOTHERE and likely a sock account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Oh, deer! --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

Wolfagain1 who has reactivated his account after nearly 1 year appears to be a sock and a case of NOTHERE per these edits:[116][117][118] By "his sock" he is claiming that VQuakr is my sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I asked him to come to talk page and do not remove references. His history shows that he is active only in Pakistan-India related pages and just add hate content and also remained blocked for edit war. Wolfagain1 (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Do not remove references" even if the content is problematic? How come you don't want to reply on talk page but resort to personal attacks? You are engaging in a typical WP:NOTHERE behavior. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

:Listen dear! I did try to reason with you on talk page but you are not responding. You are adding/removing hate content in the favour of one country. You can start a fan site for India but when it doesn't suit you, or the references are not in the favour of your ideology, you simply start removing the referenced content. Wolfagain1 (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Duck block. Will continue discussions on the editor's talk page. Lourdes 08:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ashton 29 is back from his block and hasn't learned a thing.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just when you thought it was safe to go back to ANI....

Right before he made the personal attack that got him blocked for 3 days, Ashton 29 made a change to the montage at Newcastle, New South Wales. That in itself wasn't a problem. It was after I replaced one image with a more appropriate version,[119] Ashton 29 reverted without any attempt at discussion.[120] Being used to this sort of editing by him, I reverted to the status quo and invited him to discuss the matter on the article's talk page.[121] This was less than 2 hrs before his block so he obviously had no opportunity to discuss. Subsequently, another editor modified the montage and then an IP reverted to Ashton 29's montage.[122] For reasons that I'm happy to explain I suspect that there may be some sockpuppetry involved so I reverted that edit.[123] A little under 16 hours after release from his block Ashton 29 reverted to his preferred montage again, of course without discussing.[124] Instead, he went to Cement4802's talk page and attacked me.[125] Given that he wasn't specifically blocked for edit-warring, I thought it better to bring it here than taking it to AIV. Any opinions on how to resolve this? And no, he hasn't posted at Talk:Sydney. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You're both blocked for a week to give us a break from this feud over who owns articles about Australia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Good block. Wish I'd had the gumption to do it.--v/r - TP 13:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. This is a bad block and punitive. I see no evidence AussieLegend was edit warring; he was actually seeking consensus on Talk:Sydney. Using week-long block to silence editors does not a good admin make. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There has been some edit warring today. It's not much and ordinarily it wouldn't result in a block, but I think this is a case where the editors in question have gone at each other one time too many. That said, a week is probably too much. One of the editors is just coming off a 3-day block; the other isn't. They shouldn't be given equivalent block lengths. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I daresay it wouldn't take more than voluntary 1RR from each involved party to get the blocks lifted (without mindreading NRP, of course). SERIAL^# 15:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: There has been back-and-forth editing, but AussieLegend didn't violate 3RR. Returning to status quo ante isn't edit warring when there's a discussion ongoing. And yes, a one week block with no policy violation and no warning is irresponsible. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This didn't just come out of the blue; did you read the epic thread above?-- P-K3 (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is partly a response to the epic bickerfest mentioned above. I don't care if someone wants to unblock them. What I personally would look for is a promise to stop bickering, complaining to admins about how the other person dared to change an image in a montage, and reverting each other while hypocritically ordering each other to "go to the talk page". And, yes, reverting someone's edits in the name of restoring the "status quo version" is still reverting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: I did read it; it's a content issue and AussieLegend was blocked alongside the other editor involved because the admin corps, faced with a long, complicated thread, only has the ability to enforce silence. AussieLegend made a bunch of reversions but that's ok if it doesn't violate 3RR on a single page. All the while, he made efforts to come to consensus. My point is, if AussieLegend didn't violate 3RR or NPA, he didn't deserve to be blocked without warning because the admin corps can't be bothered. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: "a bunch of reversions but that's ok if it doesn't violate 3RR on a single page" - No it isn't. See WP:EW. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: You are mistaken: "here is a bright line known as the three-revert rule ...says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period". You should re-read that and not take a cop-out that you can call any reversions EW. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: From WP:3RR:

Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Edit warring without violating 3RR often isn't okay although I make no comment on this particular instance. 3RR has never been intended as a right, the policy page explicitly say that. Also I'm fairly confused what efforts were made by anyone to come to consensus. Talk:Newcastle, New South Wales has not been edited since January. [126]. As I always say, if a content dispute arrives here and the talk page is empty, that often means everyone involved has failed and no one should be at ANI. The Sydney stuff sure there has been a lot of back on forth discussion on all sides which hasn't been particularly productive but whatever is going on there doesn't excuse anyone from failing to discuss whatever problems are at the Newcastle page resulting in back and forth reverts. Someone needs to be the bigger person and just initiate the bloody discussion and stop expecting the other editor to do it or nothing is ever going to happen except a clear cut edit war. Fights over who should initiate the discussion are IMO some of the lamest sort of fights there are on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I've posted this on AussieLegend's talkpage: I'm not sure I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that a block was warranted here, and I'm sure that no one wants AussieLegend to stay blocked for a week. However, rather than my unblocking unilaterally, let's see if we can move forward constructively, by my asking AussieLegend if he'd be willing to modify his approach to these issues if unblocked. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem fair to put the onus on the blocked editor if the block was excessive in the first place. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The block can be excessive but Aussie could also need to modify his approach. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The message being sent to Aussie is 'we probably made a mistake in blocking you for a week, but we won't fix our mistake unless you do what we want.' That's not okay. Yes, Aussie should change their approach. No, that's not a reason to keep an excessive block in place. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No mistakes were made. Aussie posted walls of rants on this noticeboard and demanded someone do something. When he was asked to be succient, he mouthed off at everyone who bothered to even take a look. This is the third thread discussing disputes he's been in in less than a week. Whether or not he's a long term editor, his behavior has contributed to the disruption. If he put his ego aside for one minute and opened the damn talk page discussion himself, instead of directing his "opponent" to do it in edit notices, and stopped reverting, he wouldn't be blocked and only Ashton would. That's the situation as it currently stands. The block is a good block although NRP apparently leaned heavy on length but it's still within administrator discretion. Other admins saying "I'd have done less" doesn't make it wrong.--v/r - TP 14:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really mind the position you're taking, even if I don't fully agree. It's fair to say that Aussie has handled this situation poorly, even if I wouldn't say he's met the threshold for being blocked. What bothers me is that some admins are dubious about the block but still want to put the onus on the blocked editor to rectify the situation. Either the block was good or it wasn't, and if it wasn't then the onus isn't on the blocked editor to make it right. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

One week is on the long side, but opening this report was mind-blowingly ill-considered and has well passed the point of being disruptive. I've seen people get indeffed for being "time sinks". Cjhard (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Politics and COVID-19

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do we consider that conspiracy theories around COVID-19 (notably the Plandemic conspiracy video) have sufficient overlap with politics that editors subject to AP2 topic bans should not be editing them? Guy (help!) 08:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• No JzG is likely asking this to use this as grounds for getting me banned. Eternal Father (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 09:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I'd say that falls within the 'broadly construed'. (Don't want to be a process wonk, but shouldn't this be on AN rather than ANI?) GirthSummit _(blether) 09:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Girth Summit, maybe, but you get more input here, and there's an ongoing incident. Guy (help!) 09:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, ah, OK, I now see what you're getting at. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what is political about Plandemic. Seems more likely that it should fall under the Pseudoscience restrictions. What is the link between AP2 and Plandemic? Mr Ernie (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It's part of he politicking coming from certain political groups on the COVID 19 spectrum of political disorders. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what is political about Plandemic

So a video whose central premise that a Federal government conspiracy led by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci (you know, a government official) is working to actively endanger the health of the U.S. population is NOT inherently political? You have to work extra hard to reach that conclusion. --Calton | Talk 11:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it falls under the political field, broadly -- or normally -- construed. I note that this article and associated ones were launched by User:Eternal Father, who is already under an AP2 topic ban for promoting garbage political reporting. --Calton | Talk 11:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely yes - It's unfortunate, but anti-science and pro-conspiracy are planks in the Republican Party platform. - MrX 🖋 11:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree 100% Glen 12:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes indeed - It appears that every aspect (origin, containment, economics, demographic impact, election impact, citizen rights, health insurance, deficit, corruption, pseudoscience, governmental reach, states’ rights) is heavily politicized. O3000 (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - But wouldn't that be up to enforcing Admins' discretion, one way or the other? Does this kind of thing have to go to ARCA? In practical terms, most of the political part of the topic is likely to have other markers that clearly relate to American Politics, so that it may not be necessary to tie the virus to AP. SPECIFICO talk 12:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not necessarily - it would depend on the specific material being discussed. For example, the idea that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab would not fall under AP2 since it's not about US politics. In looking at the Wikipedia Plandemic article I'm not seeing where it says this was related to what would normally be AP2 related items. <Edit> Looking at the article in more detail I see the federal labs part, that would qualify as AP2. Conversely, a discussion of the "suppression" of the video would not. </edit> Discussions of the lock down are more likely to fall into AP2. Clearly any discussion of the government's roll (real or imagined) would have to be AP2. However, a discussion of the impacts of the lockdown on ABC Corp or DEF Eatery would not. A theory that GHI Pharma invented the virus to make money would not fall into AP2 since it doesn't alleged or involve US government actors. General comment: I find discussions like this troubling. We should not be trying to use the bureaucracy of Wikipedia to silence voices that are saying things we don't like and that is exactly what this looks like. If an editor is problematic in this area then why not apply a COVID-19 topic ban? Finally remember the question really being asked. Guy's question can be a very slippery slope. Even if the video was 100% AP2, the complete COVID-19 topic should NEVER be 100% AP2 as that would preclude discussing it's impact on a car plant in France or on sales of Ferraris. Springee (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, actually the idea that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab absolutely is US politics. It's a conspiracy theory pushed by fringe right wing media in support of the Trump anti-China agenda (e.g. it's prominently promoted by Epoch Times).

  In a normal universe, batshit insane conspiracy theories are separate from politics, but we don't live in one of those. Guy (help!) 13:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, no that is not US politics per se. If someone from Australia says it was a Chinese lab and cites a British tabloid how can you claim it's AP2? That doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory but it does take it out of AP2. This is why the context should be considered. Additionally, just because it was promoted by the Epoch Times (or any fringe source right or left) doesn't mean it was AP2. This is the sort of scope creep that we shouldn't allow. I'm assuming we already have COVID-19 discretionary sanctions so why should we stretch AP2 to cover this? Since you are the nominator, what problem are you trying to solve here? Why aren't existing policies sufficient to address the issue? Springee (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Usually but not always. Administrators will have to make a judgement call here. I don't think it's going to be a clear cut tie. I largely agree with Springee's view. Administrators will have to make a decision based on the context of the edit in question.--v/r - TP 12:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  TParis, Yes, that is reasonable. Guy (help!) 13:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, of course they do, I don't know why it's even a question. Perhaps not all COVID-19 conspiracy theories have originated with American politicians (debatable) but absolutely each and every one has been used by an American politician for purely political motives. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that none of these theories have developed outside of the US policy debate? That seems a very US centric view of things. Yes, the conspriacies become part of politics very readily but again, this seems to be a case of stretching AP2 to cover something that should be covered separately. For example, is the anti-vax movement under AP2? Why would we consider a conspiracy suggesting that big pharma created COVID-19 to sell vaccines to be an AP2 topic? Wouldn't that fall under the anti-vax area instead? Springee (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  We should consider a conspiracy suggesting that Big Pharma created COVID-19 to sell vaccines to be AP2 when it's repeated by the President as an attack on his political opponents, and when those attacks inspire white terrorist militias to show up to state legislatures and shoot security guards at department stores, yes. It also falls under the pseudoscience DS. I am Canadian, btw. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is the slope I'm worried about. If a COVID-19 conspiracy is mentioned in context of actions of/by various parts of the US government then yes, AP2. But why would it be AP2 if it's in context of say a Canadian or Australian article/incident? Trying to pin the murder of a security guard on comments from the President is again a big stretch. Given the impact to the US and the world due to the virus and subsequent actions by governments around the world there is going to be a lot of politics involved in all this but we really need to be clear and take this as a case by case basis. Again, what problem are we solving? Springee (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, whether or not something develops outside US politics doesn't really determine whether it is currently a part of US politics. The problem here is a pretty common one: a subset of the hyper-partisan right wing has taken it upon itself to defend Trump by doing whatever they can to undermine the scientific consensus on COVID-19. In the same way that climate change denial is now inextricably linked to US right-wing politics, so is COVID-19 denial. Guy (help!) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Is it really linked that way or is this just your perception? Again, you are suggesting that anyone in say the UK who suggests conspriacies associated with COVID-19 is somehow related to US politics. As the editor who proposed this, what problem are you trying to fix. Where is this a problem that requires such a blunt fix? Springee (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, a lot of the UK right have a strong overlap with the US right. Farage, for example, or Paul Watson, or Carl Benjamin. So: "why not both?" Guy (help!) 15:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Then why not change AP2 to US+UK politics? You haven't answered what problem this proposal is solving. Why do we need to make this change? Do we have an example? Springee (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Because there's been no need for UK-specific sanctions? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. At the risk of lighting a fire under Wikipedia's effort to combat systemic bias, all roads lead to the U.S. on this one, and specifically the orange man who seems hellbent on condoning if not facilitating these theories. Definitely AP2.--WaltCip (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - (note I opposed this proposal above) What problem is this going to solve? Do we have example cases where this expansion of AP2 has been shown to be needed? As a general rule I'm against expanding things like AP2 without some clearly stated need. I'm not seeing that here and JzG, hasn't said why they feel it's needed. This is a case where context should make it clear if something is or isn't AP2 so why are we stretching AP2 into something that seems quite unnatural? Springee (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That's because he's asking this for the sole purpose of attacking me. Eternal Father (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Depends It's unfortunate, but anti-science and pro-conspiracy are planks in the Democratic Party platform. Though it depends on the specific conspiracy if it is related to AP2. I would suspect most would be but could see some not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, really? which anti-science and pro-conspiracy policies are part of the Democratic platform? Guy (help!) 15:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Trump is a Russian agent, a fetus isn’t a human, nuclear energy is bad, etc. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Those are called "opinions" (OK, the Trump one is a bit wacky, but hey). Science doesn't take a position on any of those things, unlike things like "climate change doesn't exist" or "sexual orientation is a choice". Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• What about holistic medicine? PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• ish This lunacy is not restricted to US politics. So in fact any one banned from politics should be so affected.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes and no The pandemic is worldwide of course. I do not see it as solely an issue involving American politics. I disagree that a TB from AmPol should lead to a ban on editing articles related to the Virus.--MONGO (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• It Depends Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The goal should be to allow anyone to edit. Only as a last resort should we be locking it down. Not everything is about the US, even if JzG thinks so. If an Australian minister in government has a theory about something is that now an American Politics subject area? What about a French minister? I read about how the Japanese government is planning some restrictions on stuff due to coronavirus with regards to China. Is that now covered under AP? If it's AP then it's AP, if it's COVID-19 then it's COVID-19. We have DS on both, no need to apply an AP ban on COVID-19 unless it applies to all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• So it depends on context, but generally no, as the virus itself is independent of the government's response to it; the stimulus bill would be political, and part of the quartine, but the science and medical aspects of the disease are independent of the political reactions. Eternal Father (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Most of the time, but not always After all, the simpletons who watch a 5G-causes-COVID/Plandemic video and say "yup, that all makes sense" are going to be worldwide; if a pronouncement on it is made by, say, a politician in Australia and someone puts it in their article, that clearly doesn't apply to AP2. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• But very few politicians who are anywhere close to power make such statements except in the US. It is only there that the emphasis by people with power has been on looking for someone else to blame and promoting the injection of disinfectant as a cure for COVID-19. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes with minor exceptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Note: unless there are objections, I intend to close this later today or tomorrow with the conclusion that the subject matter is generally covered by AP, but leaving the actual decision to invoke its DS in individual articles to administrative discretion — as TParis notes, based on the context of the editing in question. El_C 13:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated personal attack and ignoring of wikipedia policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery&diff=prev&oldid=955792773

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery&diff=prev&oldid=955795919 (replaced after removal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koncorde&diff=955797342&oldid=953505162 (warned on talk page)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery&diff=prev&oldid=955797857 (replaced after removal and after informing him of wikipedia policy on his talk page)63.155.99.218

"Disgusting human being" "drunk"

(talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't care. Read the odious opinion. Koncorde (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

My odious opinion that I don't think every crook who gets shot should have a wikipedia article? Or did you mean the facts I stated that were already in the article? In any event, my opinion, whether you like it or not, isn't a reason to flagrantly insult me. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The only crime we can be certain he committed was Running While Black. I know that is considered grounds for summary execution by at least two people, but not by me. Guy (help!) 22:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so you wrote that while sober? That's bad. Guy (help!) 22:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh look the twins showed up, what a shocker. You didn't read the article guy. He "for sure" committed a crime when he brought his handgun to school and then ran from the cops. That's in plenty of news articles. So calling him a crook is entirely accurate. I'm soooo suprised you two would show up and insult me rather than blocking him for flagrant personal attacks. I'm just really shocked. I can't believe wikipedia policy isn't being enforced. lulz. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Because you are either a troll, a previously banned user, or a coward - or likely a combination of all three.

I am happy to be suspended for a few days, however you deserve to know that you are hideous, your opinion is disgusting, and I will not allow blatantly disgusting opinions to go unchallenged. Koncorde (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, you wont' be suspended. Wikipedia doesn't believe in enforcing their rules fairly. That's how you can tell this is a liberal/DNC jerkoff show. And no, I'm not a banned user. "Troll" is subjective. I'd say truth teller, but people who don't like the truth like to throw out personal attacks like "troll" and "coward." Maybe I am a coward though? I mean, I'd have shot any moron grabbing my shotgun in my hand too and you'd probably think that was cowardice. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you'd shoot an unarmed man you chased down in broad daylight with your posse because they took umbrage with you pointing at shotgun at them. Yes. You are a coward.

Also anyone using the phrase "truth teller" certainly should never be trusted. Koncorde (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd shoot anyone trying to pull one of my guns out of my hands. Especially after they ran up to me and started punching me. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG block is in order for the OP's blatant violations of WP:BDP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh a boomerang block! I'm so surprised you'd show up. I can't believe you are still going by this username though? Isn't it time for you to change again so people forget your past actions? And BDP does not apply since the article says he committed crimes too. So calling him a crook is not a BDP violation buddy. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The comment above is inappropriate and possibly a personal attack. I support a block on the IP. Interstellarity (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In other words, personal attacks are OK against IP addresses, but not against members of the cabal. lulz. What was the personal attack again? lol, you can't even say it clearly because it clearly isn't. This is happening precisely as I predicted it would. 63.155.99.218 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, personal attacks are not OK against anyone on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPA thoroughly and if you agree to not use personal attacks on anyone, I will drop my support for a block. Interstellarity (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The OP's original comment was a forum-style post clearly intended to inflame what was already a testy exchange that was veering into an argument about interpretation. That's why we have the WP:NOTFORUM policy for talkpages. The best policy is not to respond, and to notify administrators. The same applies to this noticeboard. IP blocked for soapboxing and starting arguments. Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Did I do something wrong? If so, what could I do better in future situations? Interstellarity (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I was in the process of blocking the IP when you commented - you certainly did nothing wrong, but other editors shouldn't have taken the bait. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.