Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SNUGGUMS (talk | contribs) at 05:55, 23 November 2020 (OneClickArchiver adding 90.255.128.0/17). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:عمرو بن كلثوم and Syrian Kurdistan

I believe User:عمرو بن كلثوم is editing tendentiously. The Talk page of the article Syrian Kurdistan is almost exclusively a complaints page from a wide variety of editors, over the past many months, about the behaviour of this user, and evident from the discussion is an obvious POV based on denialism, to whit: the user would rather the term Syrian Kurdistan did not exist, and is convinced (against all and repeatedly offered evidence) that the phrase is a neologism produced by expansionist Kurdish nationalists this century. The user would have the world believe there was never any such thing as a Syrian part of Kurdistan (i.e. within the 20th- and 21st-century Syrian Arab Republic); and the whole thing is some sort of conspiracy cooked up since the Syrian Civil War. The user has here embarked on an attempt to gain support for their POV here: Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#PhD_candidate_as_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_Syrian_Kurdistan_against_the_views_of_multiple_professors_stating_otherwise? and when another user sought assistance here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_book_by_the_PhD_candidate_Mustafa_Hamza_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_a_Syrian_Kurdistan? and will not take no for an answer. I suspect administrator action of some kind is needful. GPinkerton (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This complaint is really interesting. At the RSN, user Sixula suggested that it was not the right place for this debate so I quit following that page, but a few minutes ago I was notified of this complaint here. I revisited the NOPV noticeboard to find that user Pinkerton jumped out of nowhere and made conclusions for everybody, and then ran to report me here and accusing me of refusing to compromise. Obviously, they did not bother to visit the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page to see what's going on. There has been a discussion going on for days, we have provided enough evidence, including the all-important Treaty of Sevres map (for non-experts, that post-WWI treaty in 1920 shaped all Kurdish statehood claims) and a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan". We also provided sources showing the initial use of this term. For example, this report by the highly-regarded International Crisis Group reads:

The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province).

This issue is really too long to explain here, so I would rather have people visit the Talk page mentioned above. In brief, two or three users are trying to show this as an entity that has long existed and three other users (at least) do not agree with that, and argue that this term was produced by Kurdish nationalists during the Syrian Civil War. We are not arguing about the presence of a Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria. Finally, this is a content dispute, and I have not broken any rules. Actually, admin intervention in that page would really be welcome. May be at least provide protection for now. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Above, the user has illustrated succinctly the problem with their WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDHT attitude and refusal to accept reality. Below, one can see a long list of sources that very much do talk about Syrian Kurdistan, explicitly, and by name. As a synonym for Western Kurdistan it can be found in geographical research before the First World War. The claim of the all-importance of the Treaty of Sevres is a lie ignorant of history and wilfully oblivious to the sources editors may peruse below. This user's insistence on claiming that a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan" is exactly the kind of false narrative they have been bludgeoning people with for months (years?). Any look at any of the works will show that the editor's POV is divorced from the real world, and is apparently vocally, partisan as regards the al-Assad regime and its opponents. Some sort of admonition is surely required.

• In the Dispersion. World Zionist Organization, Organization Department, Research Section. 1962. This book tells the tale od the Kurdish Jews who lived in the one hundred and nintey towns in what is now Iraqi, Persian, Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan
• Ghassemlou, Abdul Rahman (1965). Kurdistan and the Kurds. Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. (i.e. the present-day Turkish, Iraqi and Syria Kurdistan)
• Chaliand, Gérard, ed. (1993) . Les Kurdes et le Kurdistan . Translated by Pallis, Michael. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-194-5. Are these three regions - Kurd-Dagh, Ain-Arab, and Northern Jezireh - part of Kurdistan? Do they form a Syrian Kurdistan, or are they merely region of Syria which happen to be populated with Kurds? ... Syrian Kurdistan has thus become a broken up territory and we would do better to talk about the Kurdish regions of Syria. What matters is that these people are being denied their legitimate right to have their own national and cultural identity.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1982). Self-determination in the Middle East. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-03-062408-7. While the Kurds in Turkish, Soviet, Syrian, and Persian Kurdistan were held in place with and iron fist, the Iraqi Kurds fought virtually alone throughout the 1960s.
• Bruinessen, Martin Van (1992). Agha, Shaikh, and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-018-4. The plains of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan are the granaries of Iraq and Syria, respectively.
• Izady, Mehrdad R. (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-8448-1727-9. All of Syrian Kurdistan, half of central Kurdistan in Iraq, and about 15% of western Kurdistan is located in this warm zone. It contains the cities of Diyarbakir, Siirt, Mardin, Urfa, Qamishli, Afrin, Sanjar, Sulaymania, Arbil, Qasri Shirin, Ilam, Gelan, and Pahla.
• Kreyenbroek, Philip G.; Allison, Christine (1996). Kurdish Culture and Identity. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-329-1.
• Bruinessen, Martin van (1978). Agha, Shaikh and State: On the Social and Political Organization of Kurdistan. University of Utrecht. I shall refer to these parts as Turkish, Persian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan. ... Most sources agree that there are approximately half a million Kurds in Syria.
• Mirawdeli, Kamal M. (1993). Kurdistan: Toward a Cultural-historical Definition. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies. Turkish Kurdistan, an Iraqi Kurdistan, an Iranian Kurdistan, and a Syrian Kurdistan
• Bulloch, John; Morris, Harvey (1992). No Friends But the Mountains: The Tragic History of the Kurds. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-508075-9. The British and the French made it clear from the outset that they were unwilling to surrencder those parts of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan which fell under their control, and that an independent Kurdistan, if such an entity were to be created, would have to be in what was still Turkish territory.
• Jaff, Akram (1993). Economic Development in Kurdistan. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1995). Development, Environment, and Global Dysfunction: Toward Sustainable Recovery. Delray Beach, FL: St Lucie Press. ISBN 978-1-57444-012-6. The situation in Turkish Kurdistan is consistent with that of Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan.
• Meho, Lokman I., ed. (1997). The Kurds and Kurdistan: A Selective and Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CN and London: Greewood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30397-5. The information the author gets concerning Syrian Kurdistan is abased on results from field research carried out in 1988 and 1990.
• Berberoglu, Berch (1999). Turmoil in the Middle East: Imperialism, War, and Political Instability. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-4412-2. Then, in the 1920s, the Bedirkhan brothers introduced the Latin alphabet, which became standard in Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan.

GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We are debating a specific term. Can you provide the quotes showing that, instead of showing "Kurdistan" or Kurds in Syria, etc.? One more thing, we are about to reach consensus on the Syrian Kurdistan page. This shows that your claim of me refusing to compromise is false. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Check out this discussion out of many going on on that Talk page. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No, look at the sources yourself. Yours is the only voice on your side of this "debate". GPinkerton (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Actually me and other users also participated in the debate taking the same position as Amr. No on need to look at the sources themselves as the one who claims need to prove, so quotes and pages numbers should be presented. Finally, you can have tens of sources to support you but there are tens of them that support the other side and NPOV requires you not to ignore that. This complain is uncalled for and an attempt to force a measure from above to give one side of a long debate what they want! The users who are against Amr acts exactly like him, so if he is wrong, so are they. I am calling for an rfc to solve this.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: All of what you're saying is not at all relevant. This is only about Amr's repeated attempt to prove the term "Syrian Kurdistan" does not exist or is a recent coinage, whereas in the real world it is a coinage many, many decades old. This is tendentiousness. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Im telling you Im an active part of the debate and you are deciding for me that I am not? Seriously? You are now part of this content dispute, so go to the article's talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

CommentThis has nothing to do with Amr. This is all Konli17's fault. That page has been quiet for months and then all of a sudden he comes back after a long break from editing and starts his POV pushing again. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Konli17 is the user that should be blocked because he’s not WP:HTBAE and is just here to push his agenda. You should really see his other edits before jumping to conclusions that it’s Amr's fault. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thepharoah17: if you want to make a report about an unrelated matter you need to do it elsewhere. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, per your request GPinkerton, I'll call on other people to weigh in on this. @Supreme Deliciousness:@HistoryofIran:@Al Ameer son:. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Thepharoah17, The page was stable until Konli17 returned and pushed his pov points. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

See an example here (out of tens or hundreds) for yourselves how user konli17 changes the meanings by simple tweaking and removal of sensitive words to fake/change content and removing sensitive words (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc. Look at the long list of reverts and edit-warring in their edit history. Actually, they were blocked back in June for edit-warring. That is the user who needs to be disciplined here. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This argumentation is obfuscation and unconvincing whataboutery. GPinkerton (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Since you have obviously decided to take sides in the dispute at hand, bring on your evidence in the form of quotes from the links above you copied from user paradise chronicle! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: It's more than obvious you are unwilling to read. None of these sources were copy pasted from anywhere. I just did the most basic Goggle Books search, and provided you with hyperlinks so you can easily verify that each one discusses "Syrian Kurdistan". How many times? The quote is the same in every book listed: "Syrian Kurdistan"! GPinkerton (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

My friend, you are the one making claims here. Bring me your evidence (e.g. quotes). It's not my role to prove your point, it's yours. Syrian + Kurdistan does not equal "Syrian Kurdistan". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, it seems you are the one refusing to read since you failed to see in the Talk page in question how many editors were on each side. Regardless of the opinions presented here, you claimed that I am the ONLY one representing this side of the story. Now you are attacking the other editor sharing my opinion here. You are trying hard to push your POV, same as you did as the NPOV noticeboard, ironic. Obviously, you are not qualified to judge or point at others. And let's keep this professional without personal attacks like you did above accusing me of supporting Assad regime (with no evidence whatsoever)! And by the way, on this note the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (who declared Syrian Kurdistan) are allies of the Assad regime and there is plenty of evidence that I will keep for another time. So, better do your homework before throwing accusation around. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Rank hypocrisy. I've expanded with quotes since you're too unwilling to lift a finger to pull the wool from your own eyes and read a book. GPinkerton (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: There is nothing wrong with Amr ibn Kulthoums edits. "Syrian Kurdistan" is a lie and a fraud, there are editor at that page that are pushing kurdish nationalist propaganda lies and attempting to rewrite history. We should thank Amr ibn Kulthoum for standing up to the truth. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

More denialism. Just look at the sources! "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", all the way down! Your claim it is a lie and fruad is absurd. GPinkerton (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who is in denial here despite all the evidence. For the third time, I am asking you to provide actual quotes (SENTENCES) saying "Syrian Kurdistan" from before 2011. Good luck with that! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you read? Or do you only spew? Scroll up. Read. اقرأ GPinkerton (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to stop the personal attacks? What does that prove? You are always going to find some random authors (look at the author names) claiming things and naming things as they please. One of them is saying "I shall refer to these parts as Turkish, Persian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan". The question is, is any of that reputable? Do you have an international map showing this, or do you have a respected paper/media outlet, international organization showing this from before 2011? Since you pick up languages so quickly, I'll challenge your French, why don't you read this article to update your history? The bottom line you are accusing me of pushing my POV but you are doing a lot worse. Cheers my friend. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah sure. Read an article that has little to do with the topic at hand and that will convince me that all these respected academic sources are somehow worthless. What planet is this editor living on? On earth, Syrian Kurdistan is a thing. The idea the idea it didn't exist before 2011 is as laughable as the editor's understanding of epistemology. GPinkerton (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

WP believes in sourced content and two sides to the story. More personal attacks. I don't think I need to respond to that. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes the two sides of the story: "Syrian Kurdistan has never been uttered before 2011" (fairyland, POV) vs "Evidence for the existence of the term long before عمرو بن كلثوم would evidently prefer." (Earth, NPOV). Somehow I think including the highly idiosyncratic and patently wrong POV you are pushing without a shred of evidence should be given short shrift in consideration of WP:DUE. How much credence can we give these uncited illusions? GPinkerton (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• See also this User_talk:Thepharoah17#تحياتي Canvassing. GPinkerton (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

After your old argument of my one-person opinion failed, you are using a new tactic. How is this canvassing? Look at the user contributions! This user is very moderate, and not involved in any edit-warring. They participate in the discussion very positively. Check out for yourself! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to thank GPinkerton for opening this debate and I hope an admin would step in. As the one who filed the first two discussions about Syria Kurdistan, I'd like to add that there were already numerous high quality academic sources for a Syrian Kurdistan even before GPinkerton brought his sources. Amr Ibn will very probably not abide by academic sources has even removed before. To clarify: I have added high quality academic sources for a Syrian Kurdistan with no adaptions to the text, and Amr Ibn removed the sources. Amr Ibn doesn't seems to not like the fact that Kurds live in Syria and sees the Kurdish liberators from ISIS as occupiers. Other times he claimed that they are occupiers after they captured a town from ISIS is here, here. There are others as well. It would be similar if we'd portray the Greek or French Resistance fighting against NAZI Germany as occupiers of territory in France or Greece. I think this is a tough POV, as the vast majority of the media and probably all of the reliable academic sources view the areas liberated by from ISIS as liberated and not occupied. I seriously don't know, how this editor came through with this denialism of Syrian Kurdistan for so long with such an edit history.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, look who's speaking! An edit-warrior recently banned and who refused to abide by previous arbitration result by user Nightenbelle on a different page. Back to the page in question, we were reached a consensus before PC jumped in and started messing things up again. This prompted user Applodion, an editor on PC side of the story to remove part of PC's controversial edit there. Furthermore, user Sixula just chipped in and suggested an rfc. As a reminder, Sixula was helping with the NPOV case before user GPinkerton imposed themselves and jumped to conclusions. Again, I invite Admins to visit the Syrian Kurdistan page and Talk page (and other pages if they wish) to judge for themselves and see who the disruptive editor/s is/are. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

And, ISIS has nothing to do with this. You are basically saying "you can either be with ISIS or PYD/YPG Kurdish militia". Well, I don't want to be with either of those. This is not focus of this discussion or any other discussion I am involved in. We have a content dispute about the origin and adoption of the name Syrian/Western Kurdistan. Here is another academic reference saying PYD created the name rojava (West Kurdistan) (PYD invented rojava. P276 last paragraph). In the summer of 2012, the PYD took control of some towns in northern Syria which are predominantly Kurdish-inhabited. Over the following three years, the party expanded its territory and established a structure of autonomous government and associated institutions which it calls “Rojava” (west Kurdistan). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Two of the editors who deny an existence of Syrian Kurdistan, user Amr Ibn and user Supreme Deliciousness wanted to move the page Syrian Kurdistan (Today called AANES) to Kurdish occupied regions in Syria in a move discussion in 2015.. Wanting to call Kobane Kurdish occupied in the midst of a siege of Kobane by ISIS... This might give you another insight into the mindset of the two editors. The edits of Amr Ibn are clearly tendentious and should have been seriously questioned by admins since years. For that an admin comes into the dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should you support either ISIS or the YPG? The YPG-linked PKK and ISIS are both classified as terrorist organizations by the United States and the European Union. Is one really different from the other? Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

One doesn't have to support any of the two, but one can try to portray commonsense=vast majority of the academic views or an ISIL/Turkey POV which as to me, is not supported in any reliable source. The YPG is supported by the Global Coalition against ISIS consisting of 83 countries and NOT viewed as a terrorist organization by any country other than Turkey which literally imprisons academics for demanding peace.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

As Sixula told you on the NPOV page, "WP:COMMONSENSE is not viewed as a concrete argument, more as a "I believe my edit was common sense" but it is not something which you can repeat over and over, because if there is a lot of opposition clearly it isn't viewed as common sense." Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please ping me when discussing things I've said on a separate page, I like to see what is being said about both me and my comments. Thanks, Sixula 23:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Sixula, that was an oversight on my part. Thanks for your input. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC about Syrian Kurdistan going on at the Syrian Kurdistan article talk page. Amr Ibn wants to have it understood that if a source (Kurdish or/and Academic non-Kurdish) mention Syrian Kurdistan and/or Kurds in Syria or depicts a map with a Syrian part of Kurdistan it signifies that there exists no Syrian Kurdistan and therefore is an invention by Kurds. See here the diff of such an argument. There he refers to the sources presented by me and others. The ones added by me mention Syrian Kurdistan and/or depict a Syrian part of Kurdistan.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed action

Editors opposing the unqualified use of the term "Syrian Kurdistan" need to be warned in some way to drop it. The phrase is not just "a term used" or "by some", and neither is it a conspiracy. Failing that, the relentless POV-pushing needs to be quelled in some other way. GPinkerton (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:2A01:4C8:461:94D1:8820:E9C9:28EB:AA01

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.

Has continued to vandalize own user talk page after being blocked. Mind revoking? Thanks. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

See for evidence. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Talkpage access removed. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Could use a second pair of eyes at 8chan

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.

There are some IP editors making some legal threats regarding the inclusion of a link to the 8chan website on the page about 8chan. I can see their argument that we shouldn't include the external link, but an uninvolved admin to help out with the edit war and legal threats would be appreciated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not make a legal threat; I removed a link to Child Pornography from Misplaced Pages that violates US Law and Misplaced Pages Policy. I was trying to get you to understand the situation and defer to legal staff at Misplaced Pages to make a determination. Misplaced Pages should not be linking to Child Pornography Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is also creating a liability for people such as myself who have used Misplaced Pages in good faith and INADVERTANTLY (and because of Misplaced Pages) landed on a link distributing Child Pornography. This is an extremely serious issue and concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Just noting here that 71.203.10.104 has opened a discussion at WP:DRN#8chan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That discussion has now been closed under the reasoning of WP:NLT and because this particular discussion is also taking place here at WP:HAPPYPLACE.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

For now, I think we should just leave that link out until we reach a consensus on the matter. No harm can come of that. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Second that as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

None of us are lawyers (and those who are are not on the job). Pending a potential WP:OFFICE action (they might be interested in the subject), I don't think the legal argument is a good one. That being said, a link to 8chan doesn't provide any value whatsoever. -- Luk 00:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. We're not lawyers, but it's well within our capabilities to decide not to link to a site where we may inadvertently direct our readers to such content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Despite denying they are making legal threats above, I can't see how their latest comment saying "A link to Child Pornography has the unwitting effect of making Misplaced Pages Editors, Users, and Administrators Law Breakers. Law Breakers in the worst sense because a single Cached image from an unintentional viewing of Child Pornography meets the standard for prosecution." is anything but. I agree that the link probably ought to be omitted from the article, but the WP:NLT need to stop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt that anyone who wants to go to 8chan, out of curiosity or whatever, needs a link from us to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that linking to a site that ALSO hosts child pornography (or copyvio material, or whatever illegal stuff) EQUALS 'linking to child pornography'. That being said, IMHO this site would qualify for wholesale blacklisting because there is material on the site that we should not be linking to (and we should do our utmost best to make sure that it does not get linked), but a whitelist rule should be instated to a 'neutral landing page'. Although on a different level, we can link to sci-hub, we cannot link to a lot of the material hosted on sci-hub, thus the website is blacklisted, the root is whitelisted. For that, I think the IP was wrong here, as is removal of the root link. --Dirk Beetstra 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how this user is making legal threats. They are pointing out (correctly) that merely visiting a site like that can cache illegal images to one's device and thus meet the threshold for being prosecuted in the US. It's a no-brainer to omit a link to this site from Misplaced Pages. --Laser brain (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Laser brain, their latest comment (linked above by GW) was probably okay until they ended with I was obligated to report this matter via the process established by the US DOJ and I copied the Wikimedia Foundation as a courtesy. Up until then they'd been on the right side of the line, IMO. —valereee (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Depending on a lot of things, they may be so required. Not sure what that does with WP:NLT (not something I've looked at closely), but I'd personally take it as a well-meaning notification. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ჯეო

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.

On 2 June 2019, ჯეო was indefinitely blocked (not by me) on the Commons for repeated copyright violations. After a series of unresponsive/IDHT unblock requests, I removed talk page access there. Since that time, ჯეო has made numerous comments on my talk page here on en.wiki relating to that issue ( ), including what now appears to be monthly (22 September 2020, 13 October 2020‎, 13 November 2020.) The Commons issues have been clearly explained to them there (their talk page access was even conditionally restored in September, which they promptly violated). ჯეო has also been emailing me; I've asked them to desist in response. Although the content is banal, the inappropriate venue; the IDHT regarding the issues and venue; the failure to honour requests to stop; and especially the frequency, which now appears monthly (and is not limited to en.wiki, e.g., ), cause me to consider this as having moved beyond inappropriate and into harassment--whatever its motivation. I might suggest an interaction ban, but am open to any other remedy/sanction that would result in ჯეო's desistance. Эlcobbola _talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's do this:

• I'll block them from your talk page.  Done
• You turn off notifications from them in your preferences.
• If you haven't sent them email yet: Don't! And turn off email from them in your preferences as well.
• If you have sent them email before: we can't prevent them directly emailing you, but if they keep doing it, you should be able to forward the email to someone with authority at WMF (not 100% sure how it works, hopefully won't need to research) and they will likely be WMF banned.
• I make it clear to them that if they contact you anymore about a Commons-related issue, they will be blocked indef from en.wiki as well. Hopefully that will be sufficient deterrent.

@ჯეო: Leave. Elcobbola. Alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I should add that we can't do anything about pestering you on other projects. You'd have to either talk to admins there, or try to get their account globally locked. @ჯეო:, is this what you want to happen? If not, then stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I just wanted to get unblocked on Commons, because I think I can start work and I can help this project, I was trying to explain it--ჯეო4WIKI (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@ჯეო: You won't be able to get assistance from any of us here on English Misplaced Pages. And ANI is not the place to do it. Sorry. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Better policy about self promotion

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.

We have come across a few editors over the years that are from other projects claiming they were asked to add content here as there job. Latest example was by User talk:Thehumantwig01 from Wikitongues who said I am an intern and it's my job to try to add these videos on as many pages..... Wondering if we should nip this type of stuff in the butt before it becomes even more common...with a better policy then we currently have. As in one geared to banning a site that does this type of actions related to paid editing to promote their own site.--Moxy 🍁 13:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure ANI is the best place to post this, but I agree. Squeeps10 _{My edits} 18:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

An intern eh? Are we getting into WP:PAID territory? Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's not paid, it's certainly a WP:COI violation. Every edit is adding "for Wikitongues" to the caption. For example, 1, 2, and 3 are their most recent edits. Woodroar (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thehumantwig01, can you explain a little more about this internship? Is there someone at Wikitongues coordinating the intern efforts that maybe we could discuss this with? I believe you're working in good faith, but we work by WP:CONSENSUS here, and if other editors are disagreeing with you about whether a language video belongs in articles that aren't about that language, you'll have to accept that or risk not being allowed to edit here. —valereee (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Misplaced Pages logged me out so I didn't see these messages sooner. I am an unpaid volunteer intern with Wikitongues and I have been adding the videos of language speakers that they collect onto language pages and pages that I believe are related (such as adding language videos to the "language" portion of Misplaced Pages pages about people who speak the language or countries who have that language declared as an official language). If other users have an issue with me posting the video on non-language pages, I will stop. My issue was that very few people had issues until one user came and reverted 46 of my edits that nobody had messaged me about or had any issues with, which I didn't think was a "consensus" thing, and so I was trying to explain my case to him. I will stop posting them on language pages. As for adding Wikitongues' name for credit on the video, I wasn't doing that to try to like promote them or use Misplaced Pages as a way to raise money or anything for them, but in the videos I had seen on Misplaced Pages before beginning editing, the captions always cited the source they had gotten the video from, so that's what I did too. If I restrict the videos to only language pages from here on, can I continue editing? Thanks! Jessica Britt (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thehumantwig01, thanks for responding. IMO posting high-quality language videos to language pages is fine, although some videos may be less appropriate. I noticed one objection was to a video by a non-native speaker, another was to a video in which the multilingual speaker switched into English.

I personally am not sure I agree with Woodroar that this is necessarily a COI issue; that probably needs further discussion, possibly at WP:COIN instead of here. If it is, that doesn't mean you can't continue to do this work, only that instead of directly editing articles, you'd make edit requests on talk pages to get the videos added by another editor. It's an extra step, but the upside is that if that editor makes the edit, that shows at least one other editor thinks the addition is an improvement.

I also disagree that linking Wikitongues in captions is necessarily problematic. That would be something to get consensus on at articles; what I'd suggest is that if you add it in an article and other editors object, you accept that for that article, consensus is against you. If as time goes on you discover that you're getting pushback on it pretty much every time, I'd accept that as a general consensus. —valereee (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

But we're not talking about an intern with the Associated Press replacing citation needed tags with sources, something that's questionable COI-wise but almost definitely good for the project. Wikitongues has never been vetted by the community. It's not listed at WP:RSP, has never been discussed at WP:RSN, and doesn't appear to be widely cited by reliable sources. Plus their licenses may not be compatible with ours. I've seen plenty of artists and photographers blocked for spamming their content in articles, so we really shouldn't have different rules for non-profits. There really needs to be community buy-in for editing like this, at COIN—as you mentioned—and RSN, but possibly other noticeboards/projects depending on the circumstances. Woodroar (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Woodroar this is basically an RS-issue. I have commented on @Thehumantwig01's talk page on 12 Nov 2020: The addition of Wikitongues videos should be restricted to the page about the language featured in the video, and with maximal oversight with regards to its illustrative value. There are cases where speakers are non-native speakers, or native semi-speakers; further, there are many videos which contain introductory portions in other languages (usually the dominant standard language of the region), which is misleading for the casual listener. Don't leave this oversight to others. If you are not in the position to judge whether a video portrays the featured language in an authentic and illustrative manner, don't add it. Per default, Wikitongues is not a WP:reliable source. Given that at least four videos were removed because of such issues, I agree with the procedure suggested by Valereee above (edit requests on talk pages), as long as Wikitongues has not been community-vetted on WP:RSN. –Austronesier (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Interns are considered employees for the purposes of WP:PAID. There is currently no disclosure meeting the requirements. I also see no encyclopedic reason for adding the text "for Wikitongues" to the caption of all added videos (see MOS:CREDITS). That's just spam, and I'm removing the "for Wikitongues" part from the captions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup done. Thehumantwig01, in the future, we don't need more edits like the following: . Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked editor Abbas Kwarbai threatening Velella

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.

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

I've been checking Abbas Kwarbai's talk page every once in a while, and while they've been incredibly frustrated with the circumstances of some of their articles being speedily deleted, there are some wildly inappropriate messages being left on their talk page being addressed to Velella.

Diffs

Recommendation

No one deserves to receive that kind of abuse on here (even if the threats are being directed to a cnidarian). At this point I think a revocation of talk page access or a site ban would be needed. If admins see any possible redemption that will work, though with Abbas' ire that may need to be considered a long time from now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Many thanks Tenryuu for your report. I was about to report it here myself but you beat me to the draw. It quite made my little blue tentacles quiver. I think blocking of talk page access to all in this sock farm would be the appropriate solution.  Velella    09:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access and removed the offending WP:NPA violations. Clearly that is the least that should happen here. --Kinu /_c 09:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift action. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have also revdeled the last of the diffs posted above along with this one. --Kinu /_c 09:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

TPA removal

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.

2600:1001:B10C:2557:80A6:46FB:C398:BFB6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2600:1001:B100:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) Please remove TPA. Amongst other things:

• legal threats
• using admin templates
• duplicating article content
• more legal threats

Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Gah. It's a /42 and it expires tomorrow, so it might be best if a CU looks at it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• It doesn't expire until January 18. However, pinging @TonyBallioni: as the blocking admin/CU. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Pretty sure that wasn’t the target, but I went ahead and extended it for a year without TPA. If I recall there were multiple issues on the range and if we’re having disruption that’s ongoing without any massive collateral extending it works. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

100+ vandal edits on Myles Turner within the last 24 hours

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.

Myles Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is being vandalized at a very high rate. I did leave a wp:rfpp, but thought this should be bumped up. Adakiko (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Page protected. Adakiko (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I also pinged an admin privately to indef three accounts created specifically to vandalise the article; two of them had enough edits to autocon-bust a few days from now. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 05:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going through the single-purpose accounts and blocking as needed. Thanks for the report. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

One of those accounts isn't so much an SPA as it is a compromised account by the looks of it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 05:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked these accounts:

• User:Jpegan
• User:Ethmatcai
• User:Moedallaz345
• User:Yessir9644987664356
• User:Paidbyballmer
• User:Imjuskyre
• User:Hiro418
• User:YaMutha1234
• User:Aaron 456.67
• User:Chitowncubs123
• User:Bepiscola
• User:E1hyp3
• User:RL1016
• User:Ijfiod34ur9n
• User:WikiTwitter290

-- Fuzheado | Talk 05:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

110.170.144.xx range conducting BLP Violation

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.

Hello, i found that IP range 110.170.144.xx conducting vandalism and BLP Violation on Phum Viphurit. These users has reported in AIV but needs a long respond and quickly become stale. Let see how IP vandalize the article:

• 110.170.144.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 110.170.144.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 110.170.144.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This three users needs to be rangeblock because of distruptive behaviour. 180.244.189.223 (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a week. Rangeblocks area better suited for vandalism across multiple articles. The self-protection will stop the issue for now.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

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.

Could someone pop over to Edmund's article and remove the COI edit that keeps being added such as this please? I asked Favonian but they declined and I am at the 3RR threshold (and in any case, there's no sign of this new single-purpose account stopping). The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit and notified the editor about this discussion. GiantSnowman 17:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Must have beaten me by a nanosecond! I agree with the reasoning here and will also keep an eye on the page. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for three days to cut short the event spam. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

and with his feast day coming up on the 20th thank you all for the work. Edmund Patrick – confer 22:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Mahni Gorashi

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.

I have some concerns about the article Mahni Ghorashi. I suspect that some citations in that article might be faked.

The article, created by SPA Matt123071, came to my attention when, via category watching, I noticed an extraordinary number of categories, which I removed (several times; another user had done similarly before). I then noticed some extraordinary claims about the subject's musical and literary achievements, so I checked out some of the provided sources. They failed verification, and I tagged them as such, with detailed |reason=. Then eight editors, all with only 1 or 2 edits, showed up and provided different sources for some of the disputed claims. They also failed verification.

Today, a challenged citation about the subject's musical and literary achievements was replaced with a glowing review of the subject's recital at Carnegie Hall. That source looked very convincing, until the non-professional web page title, "Page", made me look closer and I noticed that the URL, new-york-concert-in-review.com, was a variation of the legitimate URL nyconcertreview.com. That legitimate website doesn't return a result for https://nyconcertreview.com/?s=Ghorashi, nor does a site-specific Google search. A WhoIs query for the cited domain returned that is was created today. Lastly, I Google-searched for the first sentence in that review, and the three results were all for a different pianist. Looking again at the cited source in the article, I noticed that that review was just above the subject's purported review, and the first paragraph in both reviews is almost identical. Finally, I looked at the HTML code in the cited source, and immediateley noticed that the review text was not there. While I'm no HTML maven, I found that the review text is transcluded from here (must be viewed as raw).

As I write this, it occurred to me to check his claimed teaching activities. The provided source for MIT Sloane, is a fake similar to what I found above, as is the one for Stanford, and poor fakes they are, too. The MIT domain was created yesterday, as was the Stanford one.

I'm pretty sure that Mr Ghorashi exists, but I'm almost just as sure that all of his music credentials are faked, and some of his academic credentials are misleading or overstated.

I'm here because I don't know what to do next. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed what I think was the BLP-violating stuff; the article could use another pass. (1) it should be EC-protected, but RFPP is backlogged again; (2) the lead image probably isn't a self-portrait as claimed in local and commons file tags, and (3) if it is, the account probably should be verified and autobio tags added to the article; (4) not sure if this subject is notable in the first place. Might be a job for AFD but I'll leave it to someone else to decide. (And Michael Bednarek I think you need to post {{subst:ani-notice}} on the editor's UTP.) Lev¡vich 06:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

+EC for 1 week. —valereee (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Creating a carnivore diet page.

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.

Hello,

I'm interested in writing a page on the carnivore diet since I noticed there is none.

Since I didn't find a page about it I googled and the third search result is about a reddit thread about it being remove by vegan activists.

I asked a question here about it https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Diets_and_vegan_activism

The carnivore diet article has been removed and the topic censored by a biased editor who is a vegan. He has slandered me to be another user and called the topic anti-science and quackery.

Now, I'm interested in writing a good article with reliable sources, and I know what that means. I'm a mathematician. However that would take some time and since the responses I got don't seem encouraging I have doubts in investing my time just for the article to be removed by biased editors.

Is there any way for me to post the done page, have it reviewed for accuracy and if it is OK close the article to some editors who are obviously biased against the subject?

Or just stall their edits until they are reviewed?

Thank you.

Apologies if this is not the place to ask this, I'm new. JustANameInUse (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Try reading WP:AGF until you understand what the problem is there. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I did. The editor responsible has vegan and animal rights in his user page, calls me biased, the topic against science and quackery. I'm asking how to fight that. Should I even try? JustANameInUse (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

JustANameInUse is a case of WP:NOTHERE with a battleground mentality to stir up an imaginary flame war between "vegans" and "carnivores". So far he has called four users biased "vegans" without any evidence. For those who have no history on this matter there has been a serious issue on Misplaced Pages regarding the carnivore diet in regard to sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry. If you check the history of the carnivore diet article before the redirect many accounts were blocked earlier this year and on the monotrophic diet article. The carnivore diet article has been advertised on multiple "carnivore diet" boards on Reddit. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/BecomeFree BecomeFree] and his other socks skyisdeep, Moresdevin etc were blocked for trying to recreate the carnivore diet multiple times or promote it on other articles. Several other accounts were blocked for meat-puppetry. JustANameInUse a new account is trying to promote the carnivore diet and remove criticisms of it. This user has edited the Monotrophic diet and tried to remove the word "fad" from several articles in relation to carnivore diet on a self admitted IP. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC) . These edits are disruptive and have been reverted by multiple editors. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not call four users biased vegans. I already explained all that, you are interpreting facts to satisfy your bias. I'm not here to promote anything, which I can't say for you. Your whole user page is about veganism and animal rights. Previous users don't concern me, I'm interested in writing an article, not sponsoring a diet, unlike you. Perhaps you should read WP:AGF JustANameInUse (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"The carnivore diet article has been removed and the topic censored by a biased editor who is a vegan" etc. On Misplaced Pages all public edits are logged. We can see you calling different editors vegans and you have an obsession with talking about "bias". You have done that over at the help desk, do we really need to list diffs? Your edits are disruptive. If you want to re-create the carnivore diet, then why not draft it? You have turned up on a brand new account complaining about alleged vegan bias. You are not helping your case. You want to create the carnivore diet article then why not just do it? All drafts are reviewed btw. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Again with distorting facts. I want to, that is why I asked the question and all I got was hostility from you, nothing constructive. Being attacked by a obviously biased editor and laughed at by an obviously biased editor is the reason I asked here how to protect myself. Pointing at a bias doesn't make me combative or anything, no matter how you like to present me like some carnivore quack I'm just interested in an unbiased exposition. Unlike you and all your behavior here proves that. JustANameInUse (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"It is OK close the article to some editors who are obviously biased against the subject". Facepalm. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are you so condescending? I explained I'm new and asked how to protect myself and an article against biased editors and you are laughing at me? JustANameInUse (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

What you can try if you want, is this: Read WP:YFA carefully. Follow that guidance to write a draft as well as you can, see WP:TUTORIAL on how to add inline citations etc. Then submit it for review. See what happens. If your WP:RS are good, sufficient and correctly used, you have a chance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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.

I Just added a caption to an image for Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War and it got reverted for vandalism. I promise that I didn't put anything profane, offensive, or anything of that sort in the caption. You can review it if you'd like. If the change could be reverted, please let me know. Sorry for the inconvenience. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPaul Getty ptoductions (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi JPaul Getty ptoductions, from an outside perspective, the caption isn't vandalism. However, I think ClueBot took issue with your hidden editnote. It would be better to use the {{citation needed}} tag and place the contents of your editnote on the article's talk page. Try putting the caption in with nothing else in your edit. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@JPaul Getty ptoductions: there is a link on that bot edit summary to report a false positive, please use that. If the bot is continuously triggering false positives on you and there is no response to your report please follow up at WP:BOTN. — xaosflux 19:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits by AndyCBaer

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.

Can someone else please take a look at edits by User:AndyCBaer? Based on recent reverts and talk page discussions, they don't seem too interested in following rules. This edit summary suggests they'd like to report me, so I invite them to say what they see fit. Thanks, --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Making you aware of this discussion because of your edit while I was writing the above comments. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary and am not surprised. I think this editor is on a dangerous path. I saw their rude and combative comments, their fluffy and unencyclopedic edits--this is not going to go well. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) These ESs 1 2 trend towards WP:NLT, and suggest indifferent understanding of US copyright law. Narky Blert (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That editor has never edited an article talk, nor until last night their own talk, which they didn't know how to sign. Possibly they didn't even realize talk pages existed? I've pointed them at the one for Odyssey III. —valereee (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I see User:EstateofTonyRosenthal (now blocked) may be related. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User adding unsourced content to Donald B. Gillies and reverting edits which remove it

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.

A user (SystemBuilder) has been adding unsourced content to Donald B. Gillies. Example diff. I have asked them to stop as per WP:CHALLENGE as their material is likely to be challenged. They then posted a rather rude message on my talk page saying that he was his dad and there are no sources to support their material. I then said that this material shouldn't be added at all. To avoid 3RR sanctions, I have stopped reverting their edits and would appreciate if someone else would get involved. Eyebeller (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I am adding references. Please don't be such a dick, who do you think wrote 100% of that article to begin with? SystemBuilder (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

SystemBuilder, the references you have added were only for one section; the challenged material is still unsourced. I have reverted your edits again; please don't edit war, especially not over content that, in its present form, violates WP:BLP. Best, Blablubbs 20:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs, the subject appears to have been deceased since 1975, so it should be clarified that WP:BLP may not apply directly to this article. However, the edits do violate verifiability and no original research, and I have left the user a message explaining these policies as well as a warning about edit warring. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, whoops, my bad. Must be getting late here. Thanks for the correction. Blablubbs 21:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"who do you think wrote 100% of that article to begin with?" Just gonna drop WP:OWN here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Uesr:Mulman82

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.

Please delete remove the following edits by Mulman82 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) who is taking deletion discussions personally and responding with vague threats of violence, accusation of pedophilia and homophobic slurs.

• Delaware Black Foxes
• My user page (not sure how to show diff for page creation)

Ytoyoda (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I deleted your User page, as the only edits were those edits, and revdel'd the edit summaries on the Delaware Black Foxes page. I've also blocked the user for a month for those gross attacks, as they were recently blocked for 2 weeks for sockpuppetry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Outside of the user issue concerns, I've contested the prod; please take to AfD. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

IP-hopper stalks users and calls them Serbian propagandists. Should this be an LTA? Should he be community banned for harassment?

WP:HARASSMENT. This user is an IP-hopper that stalks a group of users's contribs and constantly reverts them, and calls them Serbian propagandists. Is there any solution to this? Examples: Special:Contributions/93.138.151.117 Special:Contributions/93.136.125.178 There are a lot more socks, but these two are the ones came to my head. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 00:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

4thfile4thrank I agree there is a bad problem here, which you have tried to find help for. These IPs, possibly rangers are prolific. I'm not an admin who can handle this, but you certainly need admin intervention in this situation. Whoever is behind the IP seems willing to keep the edit warring indefinitely. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

93.138.76.165 and Government of National Salvation

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.

One looks at the talk page User talk:93.138.76.165 shows that this IP is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, and is now making personal attacks via edit summary . Could someone please block them? I have protected the article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Block me. Listen to the disguised great serbian propagandist. 93.138.76.165 (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just wait until someone blocks you. Just wait. D🐶ggy54321 01:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the same as the IP mentioned above, so making this a subsection. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Can Hrvatska radiotelevizija be semi-protected? Look at the revision history. I was battling reversion with that disruptive IP. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be an LTA. This has been going on for months. Look at the socks. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)  Done. I have blocked this particular IP (93.138.76.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) for 48 hours. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have also been attacked by the same individual. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm only just driving by here but please see User:Ivanvector/Serbian Army vandal and/or Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/VJ-Yugo. I'll look into this some more when I get to a PC. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 12:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have already reported the Zagreb-based group of IP's for long-term abuse, but no one responded.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Tictictoc various issues

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.

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

See contribs.

• On 12 November (after having been inactive since January 2019), Tictictoc started mass-welcoming users with no contributions.
• On 18 November Tictictoc removed content from Vijay Kumar Aggarwal with the edit comment "removed promotional content". Complete nonsense as far as I can tell.
• The same day they added obviously incorrect {{copypaste}} tags to Monoblock LNB (diff) and Versatile Video Coding. (diff) Very obviously wrong and reverted by User:J. M.. On their talk page, they defended this saying Ohh, but those articles are copy pasted from somewhere else that's why i added the templates. that can't be nonsensical. Later they claimed that these reports were based on Earwig's Copyvio Detector.
• They moved Dr Sandeep Roy to Sandeep Roy. As the article is virtually certain to be deleted, this is completely pointless and just a waste of time for new page patrollers and possibly (if there's no bot that does this) an admin for the deletion.
• They tagged Mr. Roy with the {{db-animal}} template. They claim Off-course not, i added A7 for biographies. If it appears for animal it might be my mistake of typos. I apologies for this. I didn't do all this intentionally. This is rather strange: they used Twinkle, people are the first A7 entry in Twinkle and animals the second to last, a somewhat improbable mix-up, but at any rate I don't see how such an error would be a typo. It's confusion all around and Competence is required.

My request:

• Can an admin check recent deleted contributions from Tictictoc (if any) to make sure no rubbish speedy deletion tagging was accidentally granted?
• At the very least, give Tictictoc a clear message that these shenanigans shan't continue. I'm not entirely convinced that J. M. and myself are really getting through to them.
• Someone else (doesn't have to be an admin) also go over their recent contributions in case I missed something.

Thank you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't done the other stuff but there are no deleted contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tictictoc: is User:Sumikamloops an alternative account of yours? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

On slightly closer look, I'm sure it is. And as you are reverting what Sumikamloops added there is a serious problem here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Sumikamloops stopped in July. Odd, though. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz, Thanks for notifying me. I am not connected anywhere with user Sumikamloops.Tictictoc (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Draftified Sandeep Roy --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Besides the content removal, Sumikamloops was warned about mass welcomes in July, yet Tictictoc started with them last week. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing patterns make it obvious, perhaps it was a WP:Sleeper. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, CrystallineLeMonde, and J. M.: I almost missed it because Tictictoc squeezed their response in between some others, but above they say "I am not connected anywhere with user Sumikamloops". Sumikamloops hasn't edited recently, so presumably CU can do nothing. But as this looks like a duck, what do we do know? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, their edit summaries are similar, their user pages are identical, too. There are indeed striking similarities. Anyway, is this the real problem here? The (possible) sock puppetry? Did the user create a new account because of the warning on their old talk page, to avoid consequences? I'm not completely sure something needs to be done about it. The user hasn't made any edits since the start of this discussion. Perhaps we could wait and see, and only if the disruptive editing continues (and we may watch for similar, newly created accounts, too), something should be done. To be honest, when I reverted the edit in Versatile Video Coding, I wasn't sure if the edit was meant seriously, and Tictictoc's replies on their talk page didn't clear it up for me. Intentional trolling is sometimes hard to distinguish from genuine cluelessness.—J. M. (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

However, it's a quite bit interesting that both users have an interest in a certain article. --CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I will AGF and unless there is abuse from the old account, not worry about it. If current account is editing disruptively, someone (not me. I'm out of service) will look at the disruption and act accordingly. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

If someone can rem0ve their access to TWINKLE, that would be for the best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a neat idea, but the process doesn't seem to be set up for that. WP:TW only describes a block as a consequence of using this tool in violation of Misplaced Pages policies, and offers no way to request such a removal. Deepfriedokra, you may want to bring that idea up at WT:TW. ◅ Sebastian 08:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Editor inserting extreme POV additions to Syrian civil war related articles

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.

AleviQizilbash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing major POV-pushing on the Syrian Civil War and Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War articles. Here and here are the problematic diffs. The user is trying to change the narrative in two ways: Saying that Western propaganda is the cause of the protests, and that the protests themselves are about killing the Alawite and Christian minorities. For the first part about Western propaganda, their source is simply an editorial in The Guardian. Some of the other sources they use are also problematic, but for these the main issue is that they all seem to describe individual incidents of intimidation or ethnic conflict between the opposition, and do not support either of these narratives. In other words, the user is trying to synthesize extremely heavy claims with sources that do not directly support said claims -- They're synthesizing an extreme counter-narrative. That, and telling me they hope the Syrian rebels will kill me, though I don't think their guns can shoot that far. Eik Corell (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've quoted 6 sources all of them has confirmed this slogan of the early protests "Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut" so your objections doesn't make any sense , You have labeled Genocidewatch of Gregory Stanton of geroge Mason university , The Christian Post , Tim Anderson's book , Agos News , The Spectator Magazine and more as " Dubious sources " !! then you falsely claimed that none of the sources say anything about genocide of Alawites and expulsion of Christians which is not true at all , all of them have this exact sentence " Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut " , your defence of the terrorists or rebels or whatever you want to call them is one sided dishonest narrative ,I said western propaganda is one of the causes not the only cause , I quoted the Guardian , your so called " editorial " claim doesn't make any sense since it's investigative Journalism , already the rest of the list mentioned as causes by other editors doesn't have any source , you kept them and didn't object to any of them while once I mentioned a fact with a cited source you started to panic in defense of your beloved rebels , You are the one who want to make POV Push , while I allowed the different narratives to exist and let the reader be the judge not your western type of censorship and Intel service manipulation of western media . enjoy yourself with your beloved rebelsAleviQizilbash (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

AleviQizilbash Comments such as wish someday you will have the same fate as your beloved pissful western sponsored "Syrian rebels" are utterly unacceptable, and that's before we even get into comments like you just want to defend your terrorists. This alone, frankly, should result in a block from editing. — Czello 19:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Quote left by AleviQizilbash on Eik Corell's Talk page:

"...anyway you just want to defend your terrorists and make the wiki article with single narrative , that's fine , I'm not going to fight with you since your intentions are malice from the start and the wiki project is controlled by your likes , so do whatever you want in the already fucked up page , I will never revert your cover up project again , wish someday you will have the same fate as your beloved pissful western sponsored "Syrian rebels" ,Cheers , ByeAleviQizilbash (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)"

If nothing else, this is a major violation of WP:CIVIL. I haven't looked into the diffs, but this isn't the way to resolve issues on Misplaced Pages.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Judge the diffs then block me later . this guys Eik corell's behavior has angered me and I don't believe that he has a good faith in his reverting , I have no problem with people who revert my editing based on good faith , I became irritated with people who keep reverting editing while they are having bad faith and malice intentions like this guy corell and his likesAleviQizilbash (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to engage in good faith, which is why I explained all of this on your talk page. What I said there is that you are synthesizing extremely heavy claims from isolated -- even if widespread -- incidents. What you're saying could be true, but sources cannot be stacked in the way you're doing to support broad claims like these. For example, I could say that all Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists are terrorists, and then stack on sources that cover individual attacks, but that wouldn't substantiate what I said. That's what WP:SYNTH deals with -- Extrapolating a position/conclusion from information that while it may be peripherally relevant to the topic, does not support the conclusion. I can tag on one last example: The recent conflict between Armenia/Azerbaijan -- I could say that either side wants to annihilate the other, and cite either side's numerous attacks/killings of civilians, and it still would not support such a statement. Eik Corell (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok man but please explain to me what does it mean " Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut " all the sources that i mentioned has documented this early chant of the rebels and they clearly said that this was their slogan , chant and " almost official jingle" when more than 6 sources agree together about this fact , then it's true and it has nothing to do with saying " all Muslims or all Buddhists are terrorists " also I'm not talking about the numerous attacks , I'm talking about the chants of the rebels , their chants are their demands , plain and simple , if you have other chants you can add them too along with the chants that I mentioned without the need of deleting an important widespread chant and demand during the early stages of the uprising . I apologize for being rude with you , I don't fear getting blocked , I have no problem with that , to be blocked gives me a rest anyway , but I just apologize because you seems to be a good person and your last answer shows that you are nice person ,I don't want you to go to sleep while feeling annoyed . maybe it was just a misunderstanding between us , I eat lots of sugar too which may contribute to my hot temper , my apologies , Thank YouAleviQizilbash (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I also eat a lot of sugary food, and at no point have I said anything like wish someday you will have the same fate as your beloved pissful western sponsored "Syrian rebels". — Czello 22:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a previous civility ANI thread in October that ended when AleviQizilbash retired , followed a few days later by a return to editing and a one-week WP:DE block by EdJohnston . Recent edits like this have multiple problems (initially demanding democratic reforms genocide was a surprising change), and when those problems were raised at the UTP, responses like (quoted above) and are not civil. When concerns about those responses were raised at EdJohnston's talk page, responses like and are also subpar. We have the sweet apology above but the subsequent post at the article talk page makes me think we should fulfill the request made on Ed's UTP. Lev¡vich 06:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In light of these links, I think the time has come to accept that AleviQizilbash is only on Misplaced Pages to push a certain PoV and cherry-pick sources that adhere to his WP:AGENDA. He is a classic case of tendentious editing, and any attempt to correct him on these matters is met with hostility and him casting aspersions on others. — Czello 11:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah surprising change ! Cherry picking ! and POV push ! , Really ! are you really unaware of the holocaust against our Alevi and Christian brothers in Syria Mr LEVIvich and Mr CZello or are you pretending to be blind about this fact ?

• International Christian Concern 4 May 2011 here , I'm quoting : "Last week in Duma, a suburb of Damascus, Salafis chanted, Alawites to the Grave and Christians to Beirut . Christians in Syria are concerned that the agenda of many hard-line Islamists in Syria, including the Salafis, is to take over the government and kick Christians out of the country. “ In a Christian village outside of DARAA, in southern Syria, eye witnesses reported that twenty masked men on motorcycles opened fire on a Christian home while shouting malicious remarks against Christians in the street In Karak, a village near DARAA, Salafis forced villagers to join anti-government protests and remove photos of President Assad from their homes. Witnesses reported that a young Muslim man who refused to remove a photo was found hanged on his front porch the next morning ."
• The Christian Post 5 May 2011 here , I'm quoting : "Christian communities across Syria have been attacked by anti-government protesters in recent weeks.protesters in Duma, a suburb of Damascus, were last week heard shouting: Alawites to the Grave and Christians to Beirut "
• The Spectator 27 October 2012 here ," I'm quoting : First up is Boutros (not his real name), a 26-year-old from the nearby Syrian town of Qusayr where once Christians and Sunnis lived side by side. So how did the fighting start ? ‘At first the Sunni rebels offered us a choice: join us or leave. When we refused, they turned on us. Our neighbours!’ says Boutros in outrage. Then the Sunnis began to threaten us. They would shout: “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave”.’ This chant is so often repeated and reported, it’s become almost the official jingle of the civil war."
• Gregory_Stanton#Genocide_Watch of Gregory Stanton the former Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention at the George Mason University 1 May 2013 report here , I'm quoting : "Calls for genocide against religious minorities from rebel leaders in Syria are numerous and frequent , the chant Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut" has been reported at anti government demonstrations since the earliest days of the revolution"
• Agos 17 October 2016 here , I'm quoting : "Alevis to the grave, Christians to Beirut' is still a common slogan" This article is an interview with Harout Ekmanian who is Working in various international human rights associations, he says : "Alevis to the grave, Christians to Beirut' was a slogan invented during the first days of the rebellion and it is still commonly used" Harout Ekmanian is a Harvard school Lawyer and a fellow of the Institute For The Study of Human Rights here and a speaker at the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute here, the Institutes Mission is to To educate students in public policy and human rights, to support faculty research, and to foster creative dialogue here
• Reuters : Insurgents seize Syrian Alawite village, killing 19: Observatory here
• BBC : Syria rebels executed civilians, says Human Rights Watch , the deaths occurred in villages inhabited predominantly by members of President Bashar al-Assad's minority Alawite sect near the coastal city of Latakia.here
• France 24 : Syrian rebels 'executed' Alawite villagers here
• Zee News : Rebel attack on Syrian Alawite village kills 40 here . Yeah surprise ! You are the only ones who make POV Push and cherry pick while rejecting all of my reputable sources because you are supporting the pissful rebels ,want to whitewash their asses , yeah they just want democratic reforms , this is why they chanted " Alawites to grave , Christians to Beirut" then slaughtered Alevis and Christians . Hypocrites . — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleviQizilbash (talk • contribs)

The Real push of certain narrative and agenda is to whitewash the Syrian rebels since 2011 till now in order to serve your CIA/MI6/DGSE/BND masters game in Syria , the real agenda push is to hide all the sources that I mentioned and only reveal certain hand picked sources to depict the rebels as innocent lovely liberal sweet democrat hippies who just want democratic reforms . if you weren't hypocrites , you would at least accept to publish the both narratives . You are the only extreme POV pushers and cherry pickers , this is why I came into troubles with the Wiki hypocrites , since their master the Zionist ex porn industry mogul and sex trafficker of Eastern European women , his holiness mr Jimmy Wales supports the Zionists of Israel and the terrorists of Syria aka the pissful rebels AleviQizilbash (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The personal attacks from AleviQizilbash seem to be a continuation of the pattern reported at ANI back in October by User:AppleBsTime. Though AleviQizilbash does have some knowledge it seems like he is only happy here when he is quarrelling with lots of people. I would go ahead with an indefinite block, since on his current path he won't be able to contribute successfully. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't done more than skim the pov pushing, but it's clear from the personal attacks alone that this editor is NOTHERE. Support an indef. —valereee (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with you Eddy , the applebstime issue was serial harassment against me , it's clear stupidity from your behalf to equate the two cases , since applebstime andthe other Zionist harassers with him can't be equated with Eik Corell , Eik seems to be nice person but he is just dumb . I don't agree with the indefinite block since by doing so you will want me to beg some worthless admins to remove the block , you will just want to humiliate me , something I will never do which will result to an eternal ban since I'm not programmed to be a humiliated sissy hypocrite asshole like the average westerns . Block me for a specific period , this is more appropriate and practical , Thank You Eddy AleviQizilbash (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This comment is beyond the pale. Indeffed. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:AlsoWukai

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.

I have previously raised my issue with this user at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wukai, as I thought it may have been appropriate, but it appears not to be an example of sockpuppetry. I'm repeating the text here to bring it to the attention of Wiki admin staff.

I recently edited Rashida Tlaib to make a small improvement to the grammar, as I believe that starting sentences with the word "but" does not fit the tone of Misplaced Pages articles. I also added a comma to help make the text more readable. User:AlsoWukai reverted the edit several days later, contravening the policy at Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary: "For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." I have tried to discuss this matter at the Usertalk page: User_talk:AlsoWukai#Rashida_Tlaib. As the user has contravened the reversion policy, I reverted back to my original edit. Less than a day later, that edit has been reverted again, this time by User:Wukai, with the unhelpful tag "that's just, like, your opinion, man" (isn't this the kind of thing a teenager would write in high school, not a professional editor?). I don't think this is the kind of civilised discourse we are meant to be using on Misplaced Pages, nor is the tag placed by the associated account when editing their User_talk:AlsoWukai page - "get over it!" : https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAlsoWukai&type=revision&diff=988257002&oldid=988156294 Again, this has a rather hostile tone. In any case, User:AlsoWukai has reverted my edit unnecessarily twice, once with their current account of that name, and then using their older account, User:Wukai. The User:AlsoWukai page states "I am the user formerly known as User:Wukai. For unknown reasons I am no longer able to log into that account on my desktop or laptop." The same person also needlessly reverted my minor grammatical edit to Sirhan Sirhan a couple of years ago, which, again, was unwarranted. The latest addition to our discussion reads: "Your sense of the 'tone of Misplaced Pages' seems to be nothing more than a misguided aversion to beginning sentences with conjunctions. Please get over it." This user has had problems with edit warring before, it appears, and objects to the grammar employed by other users. The kind of hostile, casual language utilised by User:AlsoWukai/User:Wukai isn't helpful to Misplaced Pages, and I personally find it unpleasant, so I'm bringing this behaviour to the attention of Misplaced Pages administrators. --TrottieTrue (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, since the two accounts are openly connected, there doesn't appear to be any problem from a socking point of view.

With regard to the reverts, have I understood this correctly: you reverted each other a couple of times a week ago, Wukai used a dismissive edit summary, and they reverted you once a couple of years back? Is there anything else in the way of improper conduct?

From where I'm sitting, there's not anything that warrants administrative action here. While it would have been preferable for them to have discussed the sentence construction on the talk page rather than reverting you, they didn't press it after you reinstated your edit, and haven't touched the page in over a week. Unless there is a history of disruption that you haven't mentioned, we're not going to block someone for an errant revert or two with mildly unprofessional edit summaries.

We don't rule on content disputes on this board, so the question of whether or not it's better to use 'But' or 'However,' to start a sentence can't be resolved here. I would use the latter myself, but that's really something to discuss on article talk, or to look for guidance in the MOS about. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As a former English major, "but" vs "however," is probably the sort of question that is unanswerable, or one that English majors debate endlessly. Is there anything in the WP:MOS? May I suggest, "on the other hand"? "Despite the forgoing," has a nice ring to it if it fits the context. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

In Scotland and Ireland, many people actually end a sentence with "but" in the same way you might end a sentence with a trailing "however", but. Cnbrb (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

O, tempora! O, mores! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Gen. ii.6, KJV. Narky Blert (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: surely these phrases are all covered (except for "on the other hand"} in WP:EDITORIAL as words to watch? Doug Weller talk 11:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I was going to say the same thing. Starting that sentence with any of these is subtle editorializing. —valereee (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth_Summit The use of "but" or "however" to start a sentence wasn't really why I brought this issue to ANI. It seems to me that the tone of Misplaced Pages is that of an encyclopedia, in which "however" is preferable to "but" in starting a sentence. It just doesn't sound right to me on Misplaced Pages, having read and edited many other articles over the years. However (!), that isn't really the issue here. The user in question reverted the edit, contravening the policy at Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary. My edit did not make the article worse, and therefore did not need to be reverted. I reverted it back, and they then used their old account to revert again. A second reversion of an edit which doesn't make the article worse strikes me as being petty for the sake of it. I did not want to go into edit warring, so I decided to rewrite the article text in a different way, which also removed the "but" and added the comma I had inserted. That edit seems to have been left alone.

I did the same on Sirhan Sirhan recently, which the user had reverted for a similar reason. I also modified the text for that article in a way which avoided merely replacing "but" with "however" at the start of a sentence. On certain articles which Wukai is presumably watching, replacing "but" with "however" at the start of sentences seems to trigger the user reverting the edit.

At User_talk:Wukai#Starting sentences with conjunctions, I found a previous incident over the "but" vs "however" issue, in which Wukai had been outvoted. When I replied and pointed this out, Wukai answered with "That's just, like, your opinion, man." This is the kind of dismissive passive-aggressive tone a school student might use. You say that "they didn't press it after you reinstated your edit", which isn't the case - my reversion was re-reverted by Wukai, rather than AlsoWukai. I'm not suggesting blocking the user, but that their inappropriate behaviour needs to be looked at. --TrottieTrue (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, be aware that the essay you cite is just that - it's one person's advice, not a policy. Also, a prior discussion on their talk page about the question of starting a sentence in that manner has no weight at all - user talk pages are not a place to discuss editorial best practice. Again, for the matter of the content dispute, while I agree with your position, that is a question either for the article talk page or, more generally, the MOS. As for the tone of the commentary, it's not ideal, but high school students are welcome to edit here, I'm not going to sanction someone for sounding like one.

As for the question of whether they should use two accounts in one discussion - it's not that unusual, provided the disclosure is clear and they do not attempt to use it to game an edit war, I'm not uncomfortable with it. If there are cases of misuse, I'd be happy to investigate. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"As for the tone of the commentary, it's not ideal, but high school students are welcome to edit here, I'm not going to sanction someone for sounding like one." I'm sure that plenty of high school students are capable of interacting in a polite and courteous manner on Misplaced Pages. The point is that such language is neither polite or courteous. --TrottieTrue (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, absolutely, I agree with you - we should all try to be entirely courtious to each other. What I'm saying to you is that absent an identifiable personal attack, or a long-running and well-documented string of low-level incivility (which has been hinted at, but not evidenced), I don't believe there's anything for admins to do aside from saying 'play nice'. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth_Summit Well, that would be a start. Such behaviour certainly shouldn’t be encouraged. —TrottieTrue (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

TrottieTrue: Fair enough.

AlsoWukai: Please remember that this is a collaborative environment, and that we're all on the same team. Play nice. And by that, I mean that not everyone you are interacting with has the same cultural norms as you, they don't all use the same flavour of the English language as you do, and they aren't all men. Phrases like "That's just, like, your opinion, man", while certainly innocuous to some, have the potential to offend or upset others. The best approach is to be unfailing polite and collegiate in all your interactions with other editors.

Both: can we close this report now? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth_Summit Yes, you can close it. I feel I've made my point, and I hope that User:AlsoWukai takes on board what has been said here. --TrottieTrue (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• This minor edit war seems to have been resolved with some improved wording. However, Wukai is a very hostile and non-collaborative editor prone to endless edit-wars even over things of little consequence, and also has a habit of using his/her alternate account to edit war with, in an apparent attempt to evade 3RR when edit-warring with lesser-informed people. One of those accounts should be permanently shut down so that this does not happen anymore. And Wukai should be warned about continued hostility and non-collaborativeness.

  TrottieTrue, keep discussion of content off of usertalk. Discussing content on usertalk only leads to problems. Keep those discussions on articletalk instead. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, Softlavender. I didn't want to revert my edit again and get into edit warring, so I got round the issue by rewording it. The reversions and language used by Wukai are somewhat hostile though, and it's unusual for me to experience behaviour like that on Misplaced Pages. I would agree with your summary, Softlavender, from what I've seen of the user.

I thought that discussion of a revert was best brought up on the Usertalk page, but I will avoid that in future, and instead do it on Articletalk. --TrottieTrue (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• They've sometimes bounced back and forth within minutes on the same articles, which doesn't look good. It would be pretty incompetent intentional socking-to-edit-war; the accounts are named to make them easy to connect, but if they can't fix the access problem on their laptop for Wukai, they should just enable AlsoWukai on their phone and abandon the old account. —valereee (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• So do we need warnings or a block for User:AlsoWukai--User:Wukai? They've not responded here. Were they notified? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to stop using my Wukai account if that will appease y'all. AlsoWukai (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is less the alt account than the edit warring. The issue is not appeasement, but disruptive edit warring Please see WP:BRD. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, I did indeed notify the user at User_talk:AlsoWukai#Rashida_Tlaib. You're right that the alternative account is less of an issue here, but the user could appear to be using it to edit war. It is, as you say, disruptive. --TrottieTrue (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I will stop using the Wukai account. Edit wars can be addressed as they occur. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

AlsoWukai, my above commentary notwithstanding, since you are aware of the edit warring policy, it should not be necessary for us to deal with edit warring from you since you can ensure that it does not occur. 3RR isn't a licence, it's just the point beyond which it is absolutely taking the piss to go. 1RR is what a responsible editor should hold themselves to in normal circumstances, then they should hit the talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring by WilliamJE

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.

After User:WilliamJE edited the article for Mike Straka to remove details regarding books he had written (see this edit), I reinserted the material, adding reliable and verifiable sources about each of the books. WilliamJE has started an edit war today (revert one, revert two and revert three), with the argument that this is all "book spam". WilliamJE inherently acknowledges that the material is encyclopedic and believes that there is some part of this that doesn't belong here, but refuses to comply with WP:PRESERVE and fix the problem, choosing instead to revert the edits and remove all of the content. It appears that the material is being removed out of spite to make a WP:POINT. Furthermore, WilliamJE has started to follow me to articles that I've recently edited within the previous day and that the editor had never edited before, including Essex County Country Club and Randolph High School. Half of WilliamJE's last dozen edits involve following me around from article to article. Any ideas? Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE is quite correct to remove references that cite Amazon book sales pages - it is book spamming. - Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The complaining editor should have a boomerang headed back at him. Ideas he asks

1- His last edit to Mike Straka was in 2013

2- I came to Essex Country Club after this post was made to a WikiProject talk page. A talk page I've made almost five dozen edits to going back as far as 2010.

3- Working on alumni related edits is something I do all the time. Just one example, this USER talk page post I did 3 days ago.

The above allegations are absurd. What I removed from Straka were multiple links to Amazon book pages. Is WP here to promote an author's books? Nope. It is bookspam. The complainant was told twice to make a bibliography section similar to one found at Mary Higgins Clark without the Amazon links but they shrugged it off. One of shrugs included this edit summary- 'rv malicious removal of sourced content. Even you don't believe that this material is not encyclopedic or reliably sourced; you're just doing this out of spite. This time read WP:PRESERVE, WP:POINT and WP:DICK, especially the latter.

Wrong accusations from an editor with clear history of practicing WP:OWN when it comes to New Jersey related articles. Any ideas?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is that WilliamJE believes that all disliked content should be removed, not merely questionable content. If the edits in question only removed the content in question there's no issue. all three reverts in question -- one, two and three -- remove details about the books with multiple reliable and verifiable sources, and this appears to be done purely out of spite and in direct violation of WP:PRESERVE, as has been discussed with this user. Alansohn (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources in those three reverts. Which sources is reliable? HuffPo? In my view, a bigger question is why an editor with 450k edits over 15 years is adding inline external links to amazon.com in a mainspace article. No editor should be linking this way: Straka is the author of '',''. Alansohn, what gives with this linking? Lev¡vich 18:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The link you cite was added in February 2017 in this edit. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's not play games, let's just talk about the real issues. Yes, the original link was added in 2017, but after it was removed by WJE, you (Alansohn) reinstated it here, here, and here. The question isn't "Who put it there first?", the question is, in my mind, why is an editor who is #36 on the all-time-edits list edit warring to keep policy-violating link spam in an article? You know it's wrong to link to Amazon.com this way, why insist on it through multiple reversions? Lev¡vich 18:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The aggressive removal of content by WilliamJE can also be seen at this edit, where sourced material about a book was removed because the editor did not look at what was changed in the article. WilliamJE does not believe that WP:PRESERVE -- and the obligation to "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Misplaced Pages" -- has any relevance, even where other editors have added sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

...and that edit was self-reverted 8 minutes later. (And the original reversion would be valid under DUE grounds.) Why even bring up a self-reverted edit, and not mention that it was self-reverted? That doesn't strike me as an accurate presentation of the evidence, Alansohn. Lev¡vich 18:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I cleaned up the links in that article, probably still needs some work. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"Based on spite" is not a phrase that should be used in a title here. How do you expect anyone to look at an issue dispassionately when you use it? I have no idea who is right or wrong here, and will not even look when a discussion is framed in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

My edit above has now been rendered meaningless because the section title has been changed. It originally had "based on spite" at the end. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Alansohn: So much for WP:AGF. Should we just close this and pretend it never happened ? Edit warring to restore a link to amazon is pretty high on my list of absurdities, in world where absurdity is becoming the norm --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Alansohn:: Just some friendly advice: you are clearly in the wrong here, so best to admit it, apologize and thus hopefully avoid a block for edit warring to add spam links. Perhaps this can then be closed without further action. - Ahunt (talk)
    • My recent interactions with WilliamJE began with this edit, in which WilliamJE removed reliably sourced content about a book with the edit summary "NP section criteria Born, raised, lived in Foo. Not set their novel in Foo. Get a RS that says the author is from Vineland", an edit that was ultimately self-reverted by WilliamJE. I had tried to communicate with WilliamJE in this talk page edit and to discuss the issues. These interactions placed me in a mindset in which I may not have been appropriately assuming good faith when WilliamJE removed sourced information about books by Mike Straka in another series of reverts. My intention in restoring the material was to focus on adding sources, and in doing so I did not pay adequate attention to the links that had been there previously for several years; I was *NOT* adding spam links, I just did not pay attention to what had been there before. In turn, WilliamJE was justifiably addressing an issue with links to Amazon that WilliamJE was seeking to remove. The issues with the Amazon links raised by WilliamJE were legitimate, and I was not getting the clear message that was being sent to me. Direct communication with other editors (and not snippy edit summaries) is the best way to address this and other similar issues, before escalating into edit wars and ANI. My sincere apologies to WilliamJE and to all those participating in this needless discussion. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

E-960's topic ban

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.

User:E-960 is subject to community imposed TBAN at AN/I (imposed by User:Wugapodes) from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed due to his combative behaviour. I saw E-960 appear at the edit warring board, and looked deeper seeing continuing breaches of this ban:

1. on Christian minorities fleeing Europe to the new world.

2. edits leading to the edit warring report, on abortion in Poland.

3. discussing editing on "Jesus Christ King of Poland" from six months ago.

This is persistent defiance of the community ban and is wrong.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That last edit, from six months ago, appears to be the editor mentioning edits while responding to a noticeboard thread about the edits in question, unless I am mistaken. jp×g 10:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The last edit is from today, November 19th. E-960 brought up today, on his own independent initiative, a six month old dispute on Jesus in Poland in an edit warring report on the separate subject of abortion in Poland.--Astral Leap (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, now I'm glad I put "unless I am mistaken" at the end of that sentence :^) I am mistaken. jp×g 10:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sanctioning admin note I mention in my close that "European secular politics" shouldn't be interpreted as "European politics". It should be interpreted as the separation of religious life from European political life. Since the Catholic Church and various branches of Christianity have generally opposed legalization of abortion and homosexuality, it's hard to see how the Poland edits aren't related to the separation of religious and political life, but it's not entirely obvious and I really don't know the history of Poland all that well. The edit warring was disruptive, but it's stopped, and the other two diffs don't strike me as something requiring a block to resolve (yet). I think we're at the stage of giving a formal warning that, yes, legalization (or prohibition) of abortion or homosexuality in historically Christian nations of Europe fall under the topic ban. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Wugapodes, I agree, I tried to tell E-960 and Abortion legality in Poland is square in the middle of his ban, but he brushed me aside and continued to discuss abortion afterwards. Abortion politics in Ireland and Poland are tied to the Catholic Church and secular politics. A warning here will paint a clear line. Could you also warn E-960 to stop getting close to the topics he is banned from?--Astral Leap (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Note to the reviewing administrators - please relate this to just closed at "no action" report where the same new account (Astral Leap) has already brought up the above issue. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said at the 3RR noticeboard, while I have no opinion right now on E-960 behavior, I think a WP:BOOMERANG investigation may be needed on the filler. AstralLeap account has been created just a few months ago, yet it displays extensive knowledge of Misplaced Pages's inner workings. Something is very fishy here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Tosh. Twaddle. Trumpery. I have been here for several months. In the original ban discussion, the Piotrus and GizzyCatBella accounts opposed the community voice on E-960.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Close per Wugapodes I have long since learned that what I find obvious will not be shared by all. While it seems a clear Topic Ban violation to me, I can see how someone who deebly cared about the subject could convince themselves they were on the safe side of the line. Give a formal warning that polical debates where religious arguments are a dominant part of one side fall under the topic ban and let E-960 get back to more pleasent topics.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment by E-960

I would like to say that other editors/admins involved in the "abortion" discussion did not necessarily see it as directly infringing on the ban . Also, given that there is an sock-puppet investigation going on, I did point out that an unusual patter of editing occurred during the "Jesus Christ King of Poland?" discussion on the Poland talk page (which occurred well before my t-ban), raising concerns to administrators regarding disruptive editing, entrapment, creation of multiple user accounts, and/or harassment (which this may well be part of — connected to another bigger issue) should not be silenced by evoking a t-ban. I would like to point out that Astral Leap's account was only created in February of 2020, and given the ongoing investigation regarding a flood of new accounts, who get involved in exchanges with editors and topics connected with Poland, I am not comfortable with how this situation is unfolding. --E-960 (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I went ahead and self-reverted on the first point . Indeed, the ban affects Christianity topics as a whole and European Secularism specifically, I got things a bit mixed up in my mind, and when making a series of edits on the United States page, I carelessly added the word "English" in front of statement related to "dissenting Christian groups". I acknowledge this was a honest mistake on my part, as I unwittingly just lumped the ban as pertaining to European related articles only. --E-960 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 You accidentally revealed your IP --> Are you okay with that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If it can be changed to E-960 it would be great, though I think i did this already a few time in the past anyway, hehe... --E-960 (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• NOTE: Also, I'd like to raise attention about user:Astral Leap account activity, it appears that the vast majority of the user's edits actually relate to either being engaged in admin board or talk page discussions, but lack any meaningful article content editing — mostly relegated to "mico" edits, such as the following examples: , , , or . I raised the issue with contributors who are familiar with the on-going sockpuppet investigation to perhaps see if there is a connection. --E-960 (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per my comment above, I concur, this pattern is very odd, and suggests an attempt to rack up an editing count by someone who has been here for a very long time and knows how to game the system well. WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:EVASION, WP:BOOMERANG... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Tosh. Twaddle. Trumpery. I have been here for several months. In the original ban discussion, the Piotrus accounts opposed the community voice on E-960.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Several months you say? Let's see... you opened an account on February 8, 2020 , and you edited for 2 minutes (total 2 edits). Then you came back on February 15, 2020 and edited for another 50 minutes (total of 10 edits) with two more edits on February 22, 2020, where you spent 11 minutes. Then you went dormant for 3.5 mothns and returned on June 5, 2020 were you made several edits until June 29, 2020, for a total time of approximately 13 hours. Then you went dormant to return on July 11, 2020 to spend a total of 3 hours editing in July. Then 5 hours in August , 5 hours in September , and then you perfectly wrote and linked this . In October 2020, you edited for a total of 4 hours, and in November, you edited for approximately 30 minutes before you wrote this . So to let's add this up (give or take), you have been here for a total of 31 hours spread out over a few months, and then you arrived here with a perfectly formulated, flawless report.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note - - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler

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.

Can I get some uninvolved admin eyes on User:Bus stop's behavior at Talk:Parler? It's getting absolutely ridiculous. I initially created the RfC in part because we were going in circles, but it doesn't appear to have helped. The user keeps WP:REHASHing the same arguments over and over and over again—claiming that people have not explained why the mention of antisemitic content on Parler ought to be included in the lead when they have (often more than once), and most often repeating the WP:OTHERCONTENT argument that "if it's not in the lead of Twitter, why should it be included here?". Multiple users have asked them to stop, but they are continuing. I don't know if they genuinely believe it's a legitimate argument or if their intent is to overwhelm and derail the discussions there, but the end result is the same. Talk:Parler#Description_of_this_service is the most recent example of the behavior, but it can be viewed up and down the talk page including in Talk:Parler#Heavy bias circumvents guidelines of conservative, dispassionate descriptions. Please remove subjective and unsubstantiated "antisemitism" claim and in the RfC. They began doing this on November 7 (see my comments then: , ) and have shown no sign of slowing.

Diffs of multiple editors explaining to them they need to stop, that their behavior is disruptive, and/or that discussion of Twitter should happen at Talk:Twitter:

• Myself: , , , , , , ,
• IHateAccounts: , ,
• Slatersteven: ,
• XOR'easter: ,
• Grayfell: , ,

I am also seeing that Bus stop has quite the history at ANI, including numerous discussions about disruption at articles related to Judaism that go quite far back. Not sure if anyone more familiar with their history could provide additional context.

Thanks in advance to whoever wades through that long talk page to try to sort this out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop is on a roll again--an AP2 topic ban would be a great help. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• This has happened many times at AP articles, often over minor issues or trivia, as at Donald Trump and Stefan Molyneux. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop's first comment in this mess, to the best of my knowledge, was their inserting language ranting about "social media oligarchs", specifically naming Twitter, in a response to a thread that an abusive user titled "User GorillaWarfare Twitter Troll" . The abusive user in question vanished after GorillaWarfare asked for others to step in here . It got more crazy when Bus stop jumped in to support the abusive user's illegitimate call for a "vote" in which said user accused GorillaWarfare repeatedly of being a paid employee of Twitter, and then they went back to complaining about and trying to compare Parler to Twitter .

This has been going on for the better part of two weeks now and I have felt for several days that it had passed into the realm of Sealioning and Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing behavior, but today's comment that started with "I am merely asking you for your reasoning, GorillaWarfare" and falsely accusing GorillaWarfare of being unwilling to defend her reasoning , followed by regurgitating once again "There is no reason this article should deviate from the Twitter article. Left-leaning politics is not a reason" , was definitive. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is standard operating procedure for Bus stop. Even when it is explained to Bus stop that they could easily get a consensus for their desired edit, Bus stop can't resist the opportunity to browbeat an editor instead of simply seeking an easy consensus. Here's my experience in which I explained to Bus stop that I would not oppose their attempt to change consensus. It seems that Bus stop relishes the bludgeoning process. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I've warned Bus Stop multiple times about bludgeoning since July, including this one which referenced a commitment on their talk in September of 2019 to no more bludgeoning discussions. —valereee (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'd support an AP topic ban. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think a rate limit would be more effective, like a sitewide restriction of 3 posts per thread, appealable in six months. I don't think the posting-too-much is limited to any particular topic area. Lev¡vich 19:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • A rate limit seems like it would be easy to circumvent by just starting a new thread. --WMSR (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Indeed -- part of the issue has been that Bus stop is bringing up the same argument at practically every new thread on the page (and the page has attracted a lot of new users who are starting new threads because they don't know to read up on the talk page to see if the discussion has already started). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Levivich. If bludgeoning is the only behavior issue then some sort of voluntary/mandatory restriction on talk page discussions is in order. Perhaps they are allowed 1 reply to another editor per day unless the are reply to a comment made directly to them. This can be a bit of rope before an AP2 tban. Springee (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Given MastCell's comment about prior blocks (below) I have less faith in my more narrow approach. Springee (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm pulling that back. The most recent block was from April 2011! ] If that was the last block I think some rope should be allowed in this case. Springee (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• An AP topic ban seems like the minimum appropriate response, given this editor's history. He has at least 3 indefinite blocks in the past, primarily (it would appear) for obsessively partisan editing and a fixation on tagging people he identifies as Jews. Each indefinite block was lifted in exchange for mentorship and a promise of good behavior (here's a representative example). His mentors are mostly gone from Misplaced Pages, but he's still here, and his behavior is still poor (as the diffs above demonstrate). At some point we have to show at least some nominal respect and value to the constructive editors who have to deal with Bus stop's disruptive editing, instead of endlessly enabling him. Cutsomized post restrictions would potentially be appropriate if this were the first, or second, or even third instance of disruptive behavior, but we're well beyond that. An AP2 topic ban would be appropriate and can be enacted by any uninvolved admin, although an indefinite block is also more than justified by his history and ongoing disruption. MastCell  20:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• I would like to see what they have to say about the situation but mostly I am swayed by Levivich and Springee. Seems the most common sense and helpful approach. PackMecEng (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• AP topic ban. Pretty simple. They've had plenty of rope over the time and haven't changed behavior.--Jorm (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Topic banned. I've topic banned Bus stop indefinitely from all pages and discussions concerning post-1932 American politics. Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
• I'm late to this party, and here only because I saw the notice of indefinite AP topic ban on Bus stop's UTP. He has been a clear net-negative on article talk pages for years, and my exposure to that has been mostly outside the AP area. So I agree it's not just AP, and perhaps a more appropriate sanction would be community ban, but the AP ban is far better than nothing. By the way, the serious problems also include persistent circular and repetitive argument that tends to make it less likely that arriving editors will read any of the existing discussion, largely defeating its purpose. Despite repeated exhortations Bus stop has seemed unable to grasp the concepts that a discussion is more than a debate between two or three editors, and that one doesn't need to keep repeating the same arguments over and over. While I doubt this TBAN will be the end of the Bus stop problem, it's a welcome step in the right direction. I only wish it didn't take years to reach this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  I imagine that continuance of the behavior that just led to an indefinite AP topic ban would make a pretty convincing case for a community ban, if it comes to that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  It's been going on for 14 years, including previous complete Misplaced Pages bans, yet here we are again. Jayjg 21:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  Please add these to my list: 1. Repeatedly asking you to answer a question that you have already answered multiple times, and, when you finally stop responding to those demands, accusing you of not being willing to participate in constructive discussion. 2. Believing that a discussion must continue until one of the parties is convinced by the other. That almost never happens, and it is not the purpose of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse the AP2 topic ban, and the notion that violations should lead to an indef block and a CBan discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• This is just the latest in a long line of topics and discussions that Bus stop has mercilessly bludgeoned. A year ago he was banned from Aministrator Noticeboards for 3 months for bludgeoning a dicussion there: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1017#Formal_proposal_2. After that he stated "I commit to no more bludgeoning", yet I've seen many discussions since then which he has bludgeoned. User:GorillaWarfare, User:Valereee and User:Mandruss have it right in that this isn't about AP2 per se, but about 14 years of bludgeoning discussions. After each sanction (or serious threat of one), Bus stop "reforms", but it rarely lasts more than a couple of months. User:Sundayclose is correct when they write "It seems that Bus stop relishes the bludgeoning process". I appreciate the topic ban User:Bishonen, but that just means the bludgeoning will soon start up elsewhere. Building on User:Springee's idea, I think a limit of one comment/reply per page per day might help Bus stop overcome his apparent need to bludgeon. Jayjg 21:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Y'all deserve to be bludgeoned Parler:

  Parler is an American microblogging and social networking service launched in August 2018. Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and right-wing extremists. Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories. Misplaced Pages

  If you take the time to read the referenced sources, the main themes are: free speech, explosive growth due to mass exodus of conservatives, fracturing of our information sources, and yes about 2/3 down in most articles highlighting the nasty content. Editing so as to get the most damning aspects of something you don't like to show up in the google search results seems the way WP is written these days. fiveby(zero) 23:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reality is just biased. GPinkerton (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • People are biased, reality just is. It is a shame they did not even get to reply or defend themselves though. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Check out BitChute. Same deal. I initiated a discussion on the lede, which can be found here. That was on 4 September 2020. Here is what the lede looked like on 4 September 2020. It read BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists. The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube, and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetized") have migrated to BitChute. The Southern Poverty Law Center has said the site hosts "hate-fueled material". That's not the way a lede should be written. That constitutes left-leaning point-of-view-pushing. A lede is not a billboard. The point-of-view-pushing on Misplaced Pages is not primarily being done by those of us who might be considered "conservative", whatever that means. Thank you, Fiveby, PackMecEng, for weighing in. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I think this is relevant. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeating, once again, arguments you've repeated ad nauseum about an AP2 topic on the thread in which you've just received a ban in the AP2 topic area for bludgeoning discussions, and where people have expressed concerns the behavior will continue, is certainly a bold choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't write ledes of social media articles that maximally disparage the underlying entity. This is what I am objecting to. Ledes are not required to do anything. It is entirely gratuitous to load the lede of a Parler or a BitChute article with every reliably-sourced, negative comment we can find. Bus stop (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Astonishing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that fiveby said "y'all deserve to be bludgeoned" above, isn't that some kind of threat? IHateAccounts (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No, in context I don't think so, when the metaphorical use of "bludgeon" is omnipresent in the conversation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Community ban now. I'm convinced this is the best solution after reading all the comments and evidence above. -- Valjean (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• I ran into an EC when Bish issued the TBan, and decided not to add. But, since this continues: The bludgeoning issue has existed for a long time and warnings haven’t helped. I asked Bus Stop to read BLUDGEON long ago, they said thank you, and then shortly after continued. This is quite disruptive on a page with several editors. I don’t think restricting edits per thread makes sense as repetition of an argument is more of the problem than sheer number of edits. An AP2 TBan would certainly help the situation and perhaps will provide time for the editor to understand the problem. O3000 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse per Beyond My Ken. Firestar464 (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Bus stop and I have had major editorial disagreements on four pages, two on articles I had originally created. I can't recall ever agreeing with them. That said, their disagreement, and repeated replies to other editors, never caused any disruption: in every case they were outnumbered, they argued their case, and that was the end of it. Given this, I don't understand why they are being banned from AP. Yes they respond with their opinion more than you want, and yes most of you (and me too apparently) disagree with them, but I don't perceive how having their opinion on the talk page is disruptive. In fact, when arguing with Bus stop in the past in the AP area, I've been acutely aware of the fact that a majority of reliable sources are on my side, but that Bus stop is expressing the view of a minority of American editorial boards - presumably those on the right of American politics — and is also expressing the views of perhaps 30-40 % of the United States. I'd rather have that view represented in the talk pages. And from a procedural perspective, why is action being taken against a long-term editor (not a vandal) after less than 24 hours of discussion? And before they've had a chance to defend themselves? -Darouet (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: The issue and disruption is Sealioning, WP:SEALION behavior. In this case, they have been ceaselessly re-demanding that GorillaWarfare and others expend time and energy responding to the same questions that have been answered over and over again, all the way from November 3rd to now. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Darouet: 1. Your experience with Bus stop has been completely different from mine. 2. You are largely missing the point. 3. As for defending himself, he has offered no defense on his UTP, and his only "defense" here has been to continue the same "I just can't shut up" behavior that everybody is complaining about. GW calls him on it here, and what is his reply to that? More of the same! Could the evidence be any clearer that Bus stop just doesn't get it? Given the long history here, could the evidence be any clearer that Bus stop is incapable of getting it? From a procedural perspective, Bus stop has shown that it would have been pointless to wait. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, please look at the diffs provided and not rely on your memory. Liz 03:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: if an admin feels that a topic ban is justified and the requirements to impose such a ban under the WP:ACDS process is meet, they do not need any specific community backing/consensus for such a ban. That's the point of the process, it allows admins to act without needing a long community discussion for each case. The topic ban can be appealed by Bus stop, as with all such bans. The number of endorses complicates things a bit, but in general, Bishonen is free to reconsider the ban based solely on Bus stop's request, and arbcom themselves could be willing to modify the ban. By comparison, for a community ban, it could not be simply overturned by Bishonen, and while arbcom is I believed technically still allowed to overturn such bans my understanding is they've said they won't overturn community bans. Also appealing a community ban just after it was imposed is nearly always an instant fail, whereas it's theoretical possible an instant appeal of a DS ban will succeed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse AP2 Topic ban. But I don't know if American Politics topic ban covers discussion at Talk:Parler. Liz 03:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  It definitely does, and the discussion at issue was entirely about the presence of antisemitism and other far-right content on the platform. There's been an AP2 notice on the talk page for some time now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. Liz 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is completely bonkers.

1. Ranting about Ted Cruz attacking Jack Dorsey (as if Cruz isn't your basic demagogue).
2. Something about frozen peaches, I'm not really sure.
3. Yet again ranting about the ledes.
4. "I "bludgeoned" the Talk page to try to introduce a little fresh air into the stuffy room. To tell you the truth it's a pleasure to speak freely. If they ban me, fine. So be it."
5. "Let them tell me that they admit wrongdoing for trying to make Misplaced Pages into a partisan screed. Then I can admit wrongdoing for "bludgeoning" the page"

I have no words left to describe it. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You have a strong fixation on seeing any "opponents" sanctioned. You've already been warned before so let me restate that comments such as "as if Cruz isn't your basic demagogue" is a BLP infraction and calling other editors "bonkers" is a NPA violation.--MONGO (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

First: you're wrong. Second: I did not say the editor is bonkers, I said the comment (which I linked) is bonkers. Third: as a statement of opinion regarding "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument" I believe I'm on pretty safe ground here. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You really do need to be a lot more careful with BLP issues. Even here calling people white supremacists is not great. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I Hate Accounts, no, you're wrong. You best read up on BLP as it applies everywhere and referring to those who are under the BLP covenant here as "demagogue" in your own voice is a BLP violation.--MONGO (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As an editor mostly uninvolved in this subject (I haven't edited the article, but I do live in the US and make posts online) I will echo the sentiment that this might not be a great series of posts. In an AN/I thread about a political argument you were involved in, I'm not sure that posting stuff like "completely bonkers", "basic demagogue" and "frozen peaches" (what??) is a helpful approach. jp×g 09:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse AP2 Ban Bus Stop definitely has a bludgeoning style of debate (regurgitating ones' arguments and asking odd questions about that which causes discussions to go in circles) and while I don't edit many AP2-related pages, this comes up on the WP-space pages where AP2 factors come into play - BLP/N, Jimmy Wales' talk page, etc. policy pages, etc. Assessments above related to highly partisan editing and not using those discussions to try to come to consensus but continue to push a point are my experience, and reviewing the talk page of Parler shows the same problems (mind you, I see valid points raised on neutrality and tone but Bus Stop is going at it all wrong). --Masem (t) 16:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Site ban now BS has just violated his TBAN on his talk page. This has been a long time coming. It's time to stop wasting community time and resources on this. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban but a 1 week block including talk page might work nicely as a cool down period. I've looked over the Parlor lead. It clearly fails IMPARTIAL but the general editorial atmosphere there is too toxic to bother with. I understand why an editor would be pissed. It also doesn't help that IHateAccouts seems to be campaigning for action against Bus Stop ]. Clearly Bus Stop's emotions are up. Let them come back when they calm down a bit. Springee (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not "campaigning". Commiserating with someone else who has had to deal with Bus Stop's Sealioning. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) IHateAccounts is fairly new to the project and has been to an extent using me as a sounding board to get a feel for the norms of the project (when to raise an issue at a noticeboard, when to let it go, etc.) Given the topic areas we both edit in, it's a tough place to dive in, and I think they've been wise to do what they're doing rather than just barging in headfirst at noticeboards etc. where there are a lot of "unwritten rules". IHA is perfectly aware that I am WP:INVOLVED with Bus stop and not going to take action with respect to them, and their comments on my talk page are not asking me to take action. They've primarily been using my talk page to get feedback on their concerns, which I think should be encouraged, as well as to vent a little bit on what has been an extremely frustrating experience on the talk page of the article. It should be noted, while we are on the subject of people campaigning for action, that you have seemed to be doing some of the same with respect to IHA, based on your recent comments at their talk page, followup at valereee's talk page, and now here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  My comments on their talk page and later on Valereee's talk page were related to their civility issues. The original post to their page was in reply to interacting with them on other discussion sections. I'm not the only editor who has noted their civility standards. Springee (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  GW, IHateAccounts is not fairly new as they were around long enough to IP hop for some time before they created this account. It's nice they did create an account as now its easier to make sure they are compliant with our policies.--MONGO (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am quite familiar with IHateAccounts' editing as an IP; I was one of the people who encouraged them to create an account while also trying to remind our editors that there is no requirement one do so. I was including their time as an IP editor when describing them as "fairly new". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Super! I knew that too! Whats the cutoff for no longer being "fairly new"?--MONGO (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know, a year or so? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Excellent. Thats a nice long training period.--MONGO (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, it should be abundantly clear by now that this discussion is no longer about recent behavior at one article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  This. I may have some agreements in where Bus Stop is taking his arguments in terms of the tendency for articles in that area of the political spectrum to have poor NPOV wording and tone and where its hard to get traction with the editors that heavily edit them, but the way Bus Stop has argued for that throughout several cases is bludgeoning and the fact that they turned right around after been AP2 banned to add more AP2 shows a bit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is common to numerous past discussions. This is more disruptive than helpful at this point. --Masem (t) 18:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am inclined to agree with this comment; the actual political merit of the arguments in question seems like a distant issue from the objectionable way in which they've been prosecuted, which is obviously detrimental to the encyclopedia. jp×g 09:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse AP2 ban as per Beyond My Ken's concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose sanctions for violating the topic ban at this time. Re the suggestions here that Bus stop is violating his topic ban in his comments here and on his page: I disagree. To be topic banned from a major area is a shock. When users are blocked, we tend to tolerate venting and angry comments about the block — I know I do — and the same principle should apply to topic bans. I won't sanction Bus stop for anything he has said in this thread or on his page so far, and I hope nobody else does either. If he were to post a lot of drawn-out commentary/discussion infringing on the AP area, instead of appealing the ban, that would be a different situation. But we're not there yet. And, Springee, I see your point, but we don't do "cooldown blocks". Bishonen | tålk 17:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC).

  I just wanted to +1 this. Although I was surprised to see Bus stop continue the exact line of argument that led to this topic ban, we do usually allow a little leeway to editors venting a bit about a major sanction. If it continues for a protracted period of time or they continue on editing AP2 articles/their talk pages as if there was no topic ban, that would be a different story, but I don't think an immediate sanction would do anyone any good here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable. It's like the Acela. If we are on the right track, another one will come along fast enough. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Gotta love a good train metaphor. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem, you write I may have some agreements in where Bus Stop is taking his arguments in terms of the tendency for articles in that area of the political spectrum to have poor NPOV wording and tone and where its hard to get traction with the editors that heavily edit them, but the way Bus Stop has argued for that throughout several cases is bludgeoning and the fact that they turned right around after been AP2 banned to add more AP2 shows a bit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is common to numerous past discussions. First of all nice sentence. I couldn't have written a longer sentence myself. Did I bludgeon the Talk page of BitChute? I don't think so. A light bulb went off in my head when, subsequent to the BitChute experience, I saw something very similar happening at Parler. The parallels were striking: another second-tier social media article with everything but the kitchen sink in the way of criticism in the lede. I'm not sure what "several cases" you have in mind, Masem. But the immediate precedent and the case I had in mind in my argumentation on the Parler Talk page was the BitChute article. I wanted to stem the trend. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree with you about a lot, I don't think that you're wrong about everything. That said, you really ought to consider opting out of these huge endless arguments with people who are obviously never going to agree with you. I mean, right now, you are on AN/I, in a thread where you have just been topic-banned for doing this, posting about the exact same thing! I exhort you to relax for a while. The first time I saw your posts on a talk page, it was in a similarly ill-advised jousting match on Jimbo's talk page, which went on for kilobytes, to absolutely no productive end. It's one thing to argue for NPOV; it's another thing entirely to spill gallons of ink on talk pages when consensus is clearly not in favor of your changes. jp×g 09:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

JPxG—the much ballyhooed policy of WP:NPOV does not mean much if the Misplaced Pages community fails to endorse it. I think Misplaced Pages has some principles and practices that should only be altered after considerable discussion. Pertaining to the ledes of articles on social media sites, such a discussion has not taken place, to my knowledge. There should not be 2 different standards for the first and biggest social media sites and those smaller social media sites which have sprung up—call them second-tier sites—in response to users being banned from the first and biggest social media sites. I've been here long enough to recognize principles that permeate the project. We do not write glowing ledes about the first and biggest social media sites and then throw every negative piece of commentary that is reliably-sourced into the ledes of articles on second-tier social media sites. That is putting one's finger on the scale and therefore, in my opinion, a violation of WP:NPOV. I am guilty of "bludgeoning". I can admit to that. But I am also explaining to you and others why I have argued vociferously on the Parler Talk page. I am addressing a very real problem. I should not be penalized for doing so. I would never think to write in the lede of the BitChute article that The Southern Poverty Law Center has said the site hosts "hate-fueled material" yet that is what an administrator is doing here. I only discovered that moments ago; it has no bearing on why I "bludgeoned" the Parler article. Let's all be honest about our roles. We have our opinions. What is called for, in my opinion, is an earnest discussion about how WP:NPOV applies to articles on social media articles, specifically the ledes of those articles. We can't have 2 standards in place. I contend we presently have a de facto dual standard in place—one for the big companies and another for the small companies. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to address this comment if others think it is appropriate and worth discussing. However, I am extremely hesitant to do so here/with you since it seems to be largely agreed that you are violating the topic ban that was just placed. Although I agree with those who think people should be given a bit of leeway as they adjust to a new restriction, that patience usually wears a bit thin if the person continues to behave as though the ban was not in place, and I don't intend to encourage such violations or appear to be baiting you into a sanction by engaging you in the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I clearly agree with Bus stop for those that know what I have argued on other places like NPOV/N and the like, but to Bus stop, the issue is not that you're taking this point, but your are repeating the same arguments over and over again, adding rabbit trails to the arguments that are ongoing that editors have to stop and address, and basically not keeping a focused discussion on the matter at hand. Once in a while topics can get out of hand, but this has seemed to be a common problem in the discussions that you have been in that I've been a part of as well, as also part of the diffs shown in this thread. Even here, you're trying to point out the logic of the NPOV issues on articles, but the focus here is your behavior and style of debate; what the topic area is or concerns are not relevant here (particularly when you're trying to argue that you feel you are correct and thus justifying your behavior that way - that's never a good starting point). Focus on why there's a topic ban, and it is not because you are arguing for a more neutral take on these articles, it is because the way you present debate on these articles is getting in the way of practical discussion. --Masem (t) 23:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)