Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Edit warring from User:Alex95-Ukraine[edit]

User:Alex95-Ukraine has made countless edits to 2019 Australian Grand Prix adding flagicons to tables (an example seen here, and here are 2 example) citing a consensus when in fact there was a consensus made a few days ago on the talk page for the opposite, (s)he has been informed of this several times but still refuses to wait for the outcome of the new discussion he has started on the talk page. On top of this he has also accused me of WP:SOCK (here) without any evidence. SSSB (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was only about adding entry list to the article which I dont mind. There wasnt any consensus about removing flags from the tables and also at least 4 users are against removing (while only 2 want to remove them) but still you decided to change the consensual version of the article to the version which you want. Alex (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If you took the time to read the discussion fully you would know that the main reason the entry table was added was to remove the need for 2-3 flagicons per driver, therefore there was a consensus, as for the discussion it currently stands at 2 v 2, (Alex95-Ukraine, EchoFourFour v me and Mclarenfan17, those are the only people who have contributed to the new discussion you started, there is no consensus for the reintroduction for flagicons in results tables. SSSB (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Why are you continuing to ignore opinion of other people like Admanny who also written in that talk page that he thinks that article should be kept like in previous years? Also 2-3 flagicons per driver is not 15 like it the wrc article. There is no reason to remove them. Alex (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring I just didn't see as it was a different thread, but 3v2 after a few hours still isn't enough to declare a consensus, in response to your other comments, they should not be discussed here but on the talk page. SSSB (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Whereas the behavior of both Alex95-Ukraine (not constructive participation at the talk page) and SSSB (warnings of vandalism about behavior which is clearly not vandalism) is not exactly constructive, I think the problem can possibly only be solved by starting an RFC which would include other similar pages as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Call me a cynic, but overnight the talk page has flooded with responses from editors supporting the reinclusion of flags in all tables and all based on the same argument. Now I have been around a long time—I used to edit as Prisonermonkeys—and I have never seen any of those editors before. One has never edited a Fornula 1 article for anything more than spelling, one has been inactive for a year (save for a single edit in September) and one has only ever contributed to the discussion on that page. It feels a little suspicious. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, of course, I have nothing to do and have 10 accounts. That what you wanted to say, right? Alex (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Not at all. It feels more like canvassing to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not think we can deal with this here, at least not until the canvassing accusation has been proven. A RfC, however, will solve the issue for a long time.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC is necessary, there is a clear consensus in favour of keeping flagicons and until these canvassing can be proved we will simply have to follow it. SSSB (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Ymblanter — I'm not accusing anyone, just voicing suspicions that something is amiss. When four editors (and one IP) with little to no history of editing Formula 1 or motorsport pages (I think they had two edits between them) all descend on the same talk page within hours of one another, it gets my attention. It could be that this is just the first race of the year and so there is an upswing of new editors, but when that has happened in the past, those new editors work on a much wider range of related articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't think there was canvassing here. If there was, it would be easy to detect that in their contributions. I think there is just a clear comment interest, namely Australia. The subject is the Australian Grand Prix and it seems some user just came by to edit the article on their home Grand Prix. A number of them edit frequently on Australian motorsports subjects. Now, you should not be voicing concerns over other users' contributions as your recent contributions don't demonstrate exemplary behavior either. In the past 60 or so hours you made one, two, three, four, [3], six reverts on that article regarding the flags. The first four of them where a clear WP:3RR violation. You have been blocked many for that behavior when you were still known as Prisonermonkeys. I don't know why you weren't blocked for it this time. It appears that in all those years you still haven't learned.Tvx1 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And you have been lobbying for me to be blocked at every opportunity. You have a history of misrepresenting things to the point where admins were ignoring your reports. I know that at least one admin felt that you were using ANI and 3RR to settle personal scores. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Nope that was you with that sentiment. The admin gave you a boomerang. You once again display one of your common tactics by side-tracking through focussing on someone else's behavior to try and distract from your own. The facts are the facts though and the evidence in the contributions for this article is clear. Also note that this is the second time in a short period that you ended up at WP:ANI and in neither case did it involve me. And that "every opportunity" claim is a joke. I think the last time I reported you for anything must have been over a year ago.Tvx1 02:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
"Also note that this is the second time in a short period that you ended up at WP:ANI and in neither case did it involve me."
And we have misrepresentation. First of all, I was the subject of the first ANI (which went nowhere), while I was referenced in this ANI as someone who could attest to the initial complaint. Your comments about "ending up at ANI" imply that I was the subject of both reports, which is not true.
Secondly, you have been involved in both ANIs. In the first instance, you took it upon yourself to lobby for the admins to take action when none did. I don't see how you can claim that neither ANI involved you when here you are trying to draw the admins' attention away from the original subject. That's involving yourself.
"You once again display one of your common tactics by side-tracking through focussing on someone else's behavior to try and distract from your own."
Maybe I am trying to throw shade on others to avoid attracting attention to myself—but that doesn't give the admins nearly enough credit. Maybe they really do feel that your habit of misrepresenting things (such as suggesting that I was the subject of this ANI) calls into question the merits of your reports. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you were not the subject of this report, it’s your actions again that are the root cause of why someone got reported here. Youre edit-warring to the point of breaching WP:3RR again is what caused this sorry mess. And I’m sorry to say this but I think SSSB mishandled the situation and blamed the wrong person. It‘s very telling that the OP of the first report predicted to SportingFlyer that wouldn’t be long before we would return here for an incident sooner rather than later. And barely two weeks later here we are. It’s clear that these are not isolated incidents. And my comments regarding involvement did not deal with the ANI reports, but with the incidents that led to the reports being posted. What I meant to say, is that I was not directly involved with the altercations that caused these reports to be posted, and I stand by that.Tvx1 13:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tvx1: You need to stop. It's flagrantly clear from this report and the last report you want Mclarenfan17 to meet with some kind of punishment. If they violated or gamed WP:3RR, we have a special place you can go to report them, which is where this report should be based on a look at 2019 Australian Grand Prix, but they did not. It's the correct place to file a report against the user reported here as well. I've read the entire talk page again and I can't see anything remotely sanctionable. Also, as someone with little interest in racing, I would like to remind everyone involved the article should conform with WP:MOSFLAG, which it does not currently do. SportingFlyer T·C 14:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not want a sanction per se. I want Prisonermonkeys/McLarenfan17 to finally have an insight on their behavior so these sort of incidents just don’t happen anymore. Do you really believe that the Wikiproject F1 members enjoy gettin embroiled in this from time to time?? As for MOS:FLAG, there was a large discussion over there years ago and the consensus was that F1 articles do conform.Tvx1 14:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Camps Maria and Plastiquedoll12[edit]

Can someone enlighten me on the edits of

They seem to be keeping stats in their userpage, and (for Camps Maria) zero edits outside of that. The (minimal) edits that Plastiquedoll12 does outside of the userspaces of the two accounts seems to give the suggestion that the stats are related to RuPaul's Drag Race, mostly Season 11, but I then fail to see a (direct) connection between the edits performed on the userspaces and on the articles.

I've tried to ask both editors what they were doing 2 weeks ago, but neither have responded thus far. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen this before on other accounts and user pages, too. To be honest, I'm not completely sure. I just moved on and called them "test edits" in my mind... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm thats weird, I've seen those types of edits before, and with a variety of users. Boggles me as to...what or why, not sure if its socking or what. In the past I've just tagged it for U5 WP:NOTWEBHOST speedy deletion, which is what I have done for these userpages at the moment. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Oshwah and CaptainEek: I was hovering between the 'test edits' and 'notwebhost' type as well (they did not really bother me, except that they hog an edit filter). Lets see what happens next ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Beetstra - Indeed. With the accounts that I saw that had this same kind of user page, I didn't see much happen beyond the creation of the tables. Some did update them later (if they were sports scores, or something else that needed such), but other than that... I don't remember seeing anything else happen. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I've blocked this person before, but – if I have – I don't remember who it is. Anyway, the following are  Confirmed to each other: Camps Maria, Idol Academy, DanceSchool2019, Plastiquedoll12, The Next Drag Superstar, Lolitadragracerace. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate - Oh wow... thank you. That puts things into perspective... I'm still puzzled as to what these pages are even for? Is anyone opposed to me (or someone else) deleting them per U5? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Zakkarygraham (user page) - another? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been considering whether this is some game between some of the fans of this Drag Race. As the ratings come out they (sometimes) update the pages itself, and for the rest play their own game. That would certainly qualify this material for U5. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I found one that was blocked: Renten12 (talk · contribs). Some others: Unrulydragbrunch (talk · contribs), Birdsofpreyshowdc (talk · contribs), Dragbingo2 (talk · contribs), Dontitodragbrunch (talk · contribs), Christianloera20 (talk · contribs). For some reason, these "contestant progress" socks trip filter 643. I still haven't found any that I personally blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate - Interesting thought. I went ahead and U5'd the user pages of the accounts you listed that still had tables and information published. Worst case scenario, one of them will message me on my user talk page about it and explain. Restoring the material is easy to do if it turns out to be necessary. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: it appears to be tripping 643 (written to catch a sock that as one of their MOs is editing to win/brag about prizes in contests and hence links sometimes to that in their edit summaries) because they consistently edit sections that state ..'/* Contestant Progress for Season 1 */ ...' (at a rate that trips the filter). It is a false positive in the terms of what I try to catch, and, as I said, rather annoyingly clogging the filter. Hence my attempt to communicate (and now I am here after lack of communication) to figure out whether I should filter them out of the filter, or whether we should just 'block, delete and move on' as this is WP:NOTHERE material. Seen this communication, I think a future block-delete is the appropriate action. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Christianloera20/sandbox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Missedge1/Archive may be related, too. One of the socks has a "contestant progress" user page. These accounts don't seem to be hurting anything, but it looks like a few of them have been blocked for WP:NOTHERE or sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I was sure that issues surrounding articles pertaining to the show had came up before and sure enough it seems I'm right [4]. I had a quick look and most of those editors seem to be in good standing although there was one or two who was blocked or an IP. And nothing struck me as particularly similar. But I can't be bothered investigating in detail, so does anyone know whether this could be related to previous problems? Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with adding information to article[edit]

I wanted to add information concerning book written by Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski called "Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski". Recently Piotr Gontarczyk (professional historian) gave interviews with Polish Press Agency and weekly magazine "Sieci" in which he pointed out some mistakes that the authors made and addressed exact evidence to backup his arguments. One of the major pointed mistake is blaming Blue Police (which was not allowed to ghetto) for the crimes done by Jewish police inside Jewish ghetto in Bochnia (this case is well documented in files from Samuel Frish's criminal case).

Opinion of Gontarczyk was highly publicized in Polish media including the biggest TV channels, newspapers, radio, Internet.

The first time I added that information (to the articles about Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski) it was removed and I was told that the source was not good enough in some quite unusual manner of two tables with exclamation mark:

Then I changed the source to the following ones:,Piotr-Gontarczyk-zarzuca-publikacji-Centrum-Badan-nad-Zaglada-Zydow-naukowa-mistyfikacje

and my update was removed again. I asked the editor Icewhiz (talk) about what was wrong and got the answer: "Poor source, badly written, and a from a source with a rather extreme POV".

Link to the discussion:

In the same discussion I gave him many alternative sources from Polish TV, radio, Internet, newspapers and German media (newspaper Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat owned by Axel Springer SE), and asked for opinion. At this point to the discussion joined the editor Volunteer Marek (talk), they had some vivid conversation and here are the arguments that Icewhiz gave:

- Polish government was considering implementing law which would that supposed to end up "Polish death camp" controversy,
- The law was only a project and was no implemented, but for Icewhiz that case it is good enough to say that Poland tries to impose, what he calls, "Holocaust law",
- Because of this nonexistent "Holocaust law" Polish sources "are unreliable on the topic of Holocaust history".
- The situation in Poland is similar to the situation in Russia - "state control or repression" and no free speech basically.

And in the last section Icewhiz said:

- Source of German owned newspaper Dziennik are also not allowed because: "All these sources, even those critical of PiS, fall under reach of the >>Holocaust law<<"

Link to the discussion:

Maybe these arguments would make sence if Poland was totalitarian regime without freedom of speach and trying to impose their own false propaganda, and I was trying to add this lying propaganda into Wikipedia's article. But all I want to add is just well documented and backup criticism of a book done by a professional historian documented by dozen of sources.

It feels like Icewhiz's opinion is a pure form of antipolonism and censorship based on offensive, false and biased arguments that are hard to understand (vide fantasies about made up "Holocaust law" and ban on Polish sources based on subjective and offensive opinions). Apart from that there are plenty of sources based on Polish newspaper in the Wikipedia and they are also allowed in the article I wanted to update - here are examples from the article about Jan Grabowski:
"Ale Historia: Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów", Gazeta Wyborcza, 17 March 2018

This whole case is example of censorship based on biases and wrong information - some updates of Wikipedia's articles are banned because of made up reasons. Please help me to add to Wikipedia the information about the arguments Piotr Gontarczyk (professional historian) used to point out mistakes from the book.

Bluffer8 (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The place to have this discussion is at the article talk page or RSN. Poland's "Holocaust Law" curtailed free speech in Polish media on the Holocaust (see article in Index on Censorship and very wide coverage on this). Adding Gontarczyk's opinions from a radio appearance to a BLP is more than questionable given that:

"Gontarczyk's work represents a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an "alien and harmful nation""

per academic source Finally I will note that most of Bluffer8's 52 edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk raising some serious questions.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz words that "Finally I will note that most of Bluffer8's 52 edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk raising some serious questions" are clearly a manipulation. I have not done even one successful edit concerning Gontarczyk - all my Gontarczyk related edits have been deleted and one cannot count discussion about that deletions as "edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk".

What I would like to add to Wikipedia are concrete arguments of professional historian, based on well documented files from Samuel Frish's criminal case. Contrary to what Icewhiz says Poland is not a regime and there is freedom of speech in Poland - the best proof of that is that the book (we are talking about) has been published in Poland (and as far as I know - in Poland only).

One can find in Internet any source that fits into its thesis that slams any person or any country (in example Gontarczyk, Poland, etc.). But this cannot undermine that Piotr Gontarczyk is well known, respected, professional historian employed in history research institute and his arguments are backed up by solid evidence.

Bluffer8 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits to 3 articles adding Gontarczyk, reverted by a number of users, and discussions of said edits (for some odd reason on my talk page, and not on BLP/n or the article's talk). This prior edit to Jedwabne pogrom is instructive - adding a paragraph denying (the mainstream academic view in all countries) Polish responsibility for the massacre and burning of Jews in a barn - sourced to a Polish-Canadian YouTube channel.Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not know what is wrong with adding testimony of living witness of Jedwabne pogrom (prior edit) unless one has problem with information that do not fit into his particular point of view - but this is not how Wikipedia should work.

In the link to Jedwabne pogrom that Icewhiz gave (prior edit) there is not a single word about Piotr Gontarczyk. Please note that Icewhiz manipulates again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluffer8 (talkcontribs) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If one submits the following sentence in Google or Duckduckgo search engine:

"piotr gontarczyk" "piotra gontarczyka"

then it is clear that there are plenty of references to Piotr Gontarczyk and his work within Wikipedia and much, much more in other sites. If Piotr Gontarczyk is so evil, as Icewhiz says, then why is he referred so many times.

Bluffer8 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Considering these [5] [6] [7] appear to be the diffs that have started this, and considering the text appears to be the same, this raises large WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues. Reliable sourcing aside, the information does not even appear specifically related to any of the articles, apart from the fact they seem to have the opposite point of view. SportingFlyer T·C 08:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain me what exactly WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues does it raise? I could change the form of the article update.
This information is not just the opposite point of view - it proves serious mistakes found in the book. This information is related to the articles - it shows the controversies that authors/book raises and there are plenty of similar cases in Wikipedia (articles about authors) with proper sections which address controversies in the way I would like to do it - here are examples:
Bluffer8 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • For instance, on the Grabowski article, the controversy from Gontarczyk has already been given due weight in the diff of the article you linked under the book's heading. Splitting it out into a separate section overstates the level of the controversy. Also, the fact you're saying it "proves serious mistakes found in the book" is not a neutrao position to be taking for these edits. Removing the topic completely from the analysis, a historian published a book and received criticism from another historian in regards to the book. That's all this needs to be, especially given the contentious nature of the topic, and this has been already adequately represented in that article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot see exactly where can you see "the controversy from Gontarczyk" in the article about Grabowski - he is not mentioned there even single time (I think he was mentioned but someone "updated" the article). Could you please point it directly? How can you say that this topic "has been already adequately represented in that article" if Gontarczyk arguments are not even mentioned.
If you look at the article into section "Dalej jest noc":
then you will find positive and subjective opinion/flattery about the book from historian Jacek Chrobaczyński. I completely cannot understand why I am banned from adding (into the same section or the new one) scientifically based criticism of the book, done by professional historian? And yes - according to Gontarczyk's word he found some serious mistakes, which are well documented and well described. In Wikipedia it is common practice to add criticism concerning books/authors - I gave examples:
If the source is right (it does not come from totalitarian regime where there is no free speech), if the author is right (he is a professional historian employed in well known history research institute) and the topic has not been described yet then what is the problem?
I hope we will reach the compromise here - which could be adding the Gontarczyk's opinion into "Dalej jest noc" section of the article about Jan Grabowski and creating "Controversy" section for the article about Barbara Engelking.
Bluffer8 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed Dalej jest noc has its own article where Gontarczyk's opinion appears. The book on Grabowski's main page links to Dalej jest noc, and has a sentence or two about the criticism it received. I would suggest not adding the Gostarczyk opinion back to any of the pages and instead focusing on Dalej jest noc, though I think what's currently on that page is good enough. In any case, this seems to be more of a content dispute than anything actionable at ANI. SportingFlyer T·C 01:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
For me it looks like you are trying to stop adding of important Gontarczyk criticism of the book (and the fact that the book has been criticized) - because some other, older Gontarczyk's opinions are outside Wikipedia, in the book (could you please show me where exactly have you found it?). And at the same time you do not even allow to mention (in the article) that the book has been criticized in mass media and to inform why. I am not satisfied with that answer and I do not agree with this approach - I gave enough examples of the book criticism (in Wikipedia's articles) to see that double standards and censorship are applied here.
It looks like a group of editors usurp and owned the article, and disagrees on any changes because it ruins the point of view they try to convey through the article. One can see that to stop the article updates, Wikipedia users are flooded with arguments (sometime absurd - vide regime in Poland or "ethno-nationalist" Gontarczyk) and that every bigger update to certain articles are immediately removed by the same editors.
It this is your final opinion, then I will proceed further with my doubts concerning the article update. Thank you for your time.
Bluffer8 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no interest in this topic at all but am trying to balance concerns with WP:UNDUE as neutrally as I possibly can. The current write up here clearly shows there has been criticism of the book. [8] Adding more specific criticism would violate WP:UNDUE. The book also has its own Wikipedia article here Dalej jest noc in which Gontarczyk's criticism appears. I haven't looked at anything outside of Wikipedia, but I do not see any problem with "double standards" or "censorship." I do have a problem with giving the criticism undue weight. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
According to WP:UNDUE: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide COMPLETE information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean EXCLUSION of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."
The Gontarczyk's opinion is not a view of "distinct (and minuscule) minority" and was highly publicized in all media (what is worth mentioning on its own) - weekly magazine Sieci gave this topic a front cover:
Gontarczyk works for Institute of National Remembrance and his opinion is not just a tiny, unimportant voice since he represents this institute.
In the meantime Polish League Against Defamation has joined to this case and publicly called authors of the book to address Gontarczyk's objections:
So as you can see this is not a voice of a small minority that could get undue weight by being addressed.
I am not trying to dominate the whole article with extremely big section "controversies". I just want to add valuable and important information (maybe one or two sentences) that would guarantee that "all significant viewpoints that have been published".
Bluffer8 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Lest we forget, this is a professor at the University of Ottawa (covered in mainstream press and academia). Gontarczyk is covered this way in a RS: Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present, University of Nebraska Press, Joanna B. Michlic, page 111. As for the nature of wSieci's covers, well: Polish magazine causes outrage with cover showing white woman being sexually attacked by 'migrants', Independent, 17 Feb 2016. A number of WP:REDFLAGs here - Bluffer8's edits were reverted by 4 different experienced Wikipedia editors. Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
As for the particular piece in wSieci, it is covered here (Polish): - which notes that aside from appearing on the cover, Grabowski and Engelking do not appear in the actual text (which discusses a chapter by Dagmara Swałtek-Niewińska). The piece on (a fact-checking service) notes a detailed rebuttal by Polish Academy of Sciences (with whom Swałtek-Niewińska is associated with) which endorses - saying Gontarczyk omitted or failed to notice that Swałtek-Niewińska did cover the Jewish police as well. In regards to Gontarczyk's accusations of "introducing lies", conclude with the rhetorical "Did Gontarczyk mean himself?". Now - this all being rather off-topic for Grabowski (ignoring the sensationalist cover) - it would be questionable to include cited directly to Gontarczyk on a hypothetical page on Dagmara Swałtek-Niewińska (TOOSOON). I would question whether Bluffer8 is possibly WP:NOTTHERE in regards to advocating inclusion of such material in 2 BLPs (Grabowsky and Engelking). Icewhiz (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The link to the book, that you gave, does not work - I get a message that some viewing limits have been reached.
That is ridiculous that you suggesting me being WP:NOTTHERE especially if one consider the argument that you use to stop me (and others) from updating articles (vide regime in Poland or "ethno-nationalist" Gontarczyk). The history of the deletions (that you have done in the articles) also says a lot.
You try to disqualify weekly magazine w Sieci based on some cover and I disqualify (the source of your information) because is highly controversial ultra left-side portal, which promotes lefties aggression and physical violence towards jurnalists:
From what I know Gontarczyk's objections have not been answered yet - this article proves this:
If you have a good source of information concerning that case (Gontarczyk's criticism of the book) then I am eager to add it to the article. The case is developmental and the new information comes every few days. That is why I suggest adding the new section "Controversies" which could be updated accordingly to the news.
Bluffer8 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Jahmalm and Ahmedo Semsurî[edit]

Both editors initially blocked 48 hours for edit warring. Ahmedo Semsurî unblocked after accepted unblock request. Jahmalm reblocked indef for block evasion here and at affected articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
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.

Two separate but related reports, combined by me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

After a review, I've blocked both editors 48 hours for edit warring on multiple articles, while simultaneously reporting the other editor for edit warring (a pet peeve of mine). Both are also misusing the term "vandalism". No talk page posts by either editor. If the edit warring resumes after the block expires, the next block will be for much longer. Discuss on article talk pages and gain consensus for disputed edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I have merged another report on the same issue. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Continuing POV-editing and vandalism by user[edit]

I was told to write here by the folks at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[9], so here I am. I want to report Jahmalm for vandalism. Every single edit of his is POV-related and vandalism (I'll actually call it smart vandalism since he actually uses sources (one source (author) over and over again in tens of pages). He's ignoring my edits and demands for sources/clarifications/better sources by reverting ([10][11][12]) and claim that I'm just 'an ethno-pov changer' every time (despite using various and diverse sources to support my changes (historians, linguistics, etc.). He even had the audacity to report me for vandalism, when I confronted his edits. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any edits that would be within the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. Can you provide Help:Diffs? Or are you actually just having a content dispute that would be best resolved in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? --Bsherr (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a 'content dispute' since it's not about supporting two contradictory academic arguments. He's just reverting my changes when it doesn't fit his point of view. I cleaned up after his mess on three articles, always academically sourced [13]. Now instead of having a sober debate on why he adds content with blogs as a source or oeuvres by one particular historian whose views he supports, he reverts and calls me a Kurdish nationalist. And note that I've worked hard to remove pro-Kurdish vandalism on Wikipedia as well([[14]). Concerning Help:Diffs, I'm not sure what you're looking for, but I would gladly provide it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

One example: I stated why I removed a map he added and why I added templates to various sentences.[15][16], but instead of looking into them, he just reverts [17][18]. It doesn't seem like he's on Wikipedia for any other reason than to force his views despite having academia against him. I'm really trying to make him argue for his changes, but he accuses me of being a nationalist.

Also, I'm pretty sure that he'll breach the Wikipedia:3RR today. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
And the vandalism continues as I write [19][20][21] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a sober debate will take place.[22] Sadly. And the racism thing is really inappropriate. I've written on the talk pages of all three articles in question to move forward, but to no avail. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No willingness to improve any of the articles with POV/OR issues. [23] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism only account User:Ahmedo Semsurî by a Kurdish nationalist[edit]

Vandalism and POV changes by User:Ahmedo Semsurî a Kurdish nationalist in the articles Kurmanji, Ezdiki language, Ezidkhan etc. since yesterday—Jahmalm (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Serious question, is this how 'a Kurdish nationalist' works? [24]. Seriously, it's time to stop vandalizing --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I had some skepticism that this was a behavioral incident for this noticeboard until Jahmalm's report above. It is patently obvious that User:Ahmedo Semsurî is not a vandalism-only account. So, @Jahmalm:, why would you claim that? --Bsherr (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Man on Mission User:Ahmedo Semsurî[edit]

I have merged this report as it appears to concern the same user and the same issue. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Man on mission. User:Ahmedo Semsurî tries everything to destroy Yazidi articles, spreads his pov here, replaces Kurmanji with "Kurmaji Kurdish" or "Northern Kurdish"(see here) does not understand the difference between settlement areas and countries (see here), does not understand that there are Yazidis who do not call themselves Kurds. does not understand that Ezdiki or the "Yazidi language" is a recognized minority language in Armenia since 2002 and protected by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. had previously started an Editwar. had misused the term vandalism often. (see here) calls me racist because I told him that he is Kurd. But that has nothing to do with racism, because he is indeed a Kurd and it is also written on his Wikipedia page. His posts show us for dayslong what goal he pursues.[25] for example erasing Shabak and Yazidi identity. claims that Shabaki and the Zaza language are „Kurdish“.[26] Also Human Rights Watch had reported about this methods according to a report from November 2009 „The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds.“[27] (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You forgot to give Ahmedo Semsurî a notice about your report. I've done so. Sakura CarteletTalk 03:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Let me point out the conduct of the reporting IP. Note this gem, which refers to the IP as "we", and includes various personal attacks. Or here, where IP says they are not surprised because you are a Kurd. Also note that both this IP, and Jahmalm both use to encase quotes, which I've never seen before. Jamahlm is currently blocked, so this may be a case of WP:BLOCKEVASION. I have left a note about logged out editing to both IP and account. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
There's also this IP address[28] which only became active after Jahmalm was blocked and continued his POV-editing. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
On another note, it seems like that Jahmalm is deliberately using my ethnicity to delegitimize my criticism of the articles. But I have listed my problems and he chose to attack me instead of discussing.[29] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reporting IP blocked by another admin, and Jahmalm reblocked indefinitely for block evasion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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


Blocked by Widr; now we just need to G5 their pages :) (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 11:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
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:Karyachadu, could someone do the necessary please? ——SerialNumber54129 11:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Debi Prasad Misra is edit warring on Help:IPA/Sanskrit[edit]

Editor blocked for 24h. Abecedare (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
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. For the past week, User:Debi Prasad Misra has been edit warring on Help:IPA/Sanskrit. We've invited him to discuss the changes (actually there's an existing thread on the talk page of the guide) he'd like to see in the guide but he's been consistently ignoring all of that (see [30] and his user talk page).

Some of his edits are blatantly incorrect, like writing voiceless stops such as [p] or [t] with a voiced aspiration diacritic ⟨ʱ⟩. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Propose short block Obviously a WP:ENGAGE problem... could be WP:COMPETENCE, might not be understanding the talk page. A block might get them to notice. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support short block per Soapfish Jim and the Catdish to get them to WP:ENGAGE. Otherwise, escalating blocks for edit warring. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I had missed this ANI report and filed one at ANEW too. The editor has been blocked for 24h by Liz, presumably in response to one of the reports. Closing both for now. Abecedare (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Cleisthenes2 and Toby Young - topic ban[edit]

Cleisthenes2 blocked for 48 hours for persistent edit warring, and topic banned indefinitely from editing Toby Young, both as AE actions. Fish+Karate 10:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
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.

Despite previous useful edits, since August 2018 (bar two edits), Cleisthenes2 has been a Single Purpose Account attempting to whitewash the article Toby Young. This article previously had COI issues, including Young himself editing it 200+ times [31]. They are trying to remove the section from the lede that states that he resigned from a position "after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter posts were uncovered". This sentence, whilst obviously negative in a BLP, is currently sourced to eight reliable sources (and I'm sure that more could be found very easily).

The issue has been to BLPN twice Consensus to keep that text, Consensus to allow Young's own denial to appear in the article, bt not in the lede and has been at ANI before [32]. Cleisthenes2 has also attempted to take User:Fæ to the edit-warring board - this didn't go well.

So far, despite absolutely no support at the talk page apart from a couple of IPs and a mysterious new account which popped up, Cleisthenes2 has removed that section from the lede of the article no less than eleven times ([33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]), from July 2018 up to this morning. They have been reverted by a number of other editors.

As an addition, I also note that despite being told not to do it at the ANI report linked above, Cleisthenes2 has again misgendered Fæ on the talk page today [44].

It is very clear that Cleisthenes2 has a severe issue with WP:IDHT, believing that if they make the edit enough times, eventually it will stick. It won't. Ironically the article, as it stands, could be a lot more negative than it is - Young's comments on various subjects have been covered in reliable sources, and the article skims over some of the more egregious - but in the end, Cleisthenes2 need to be topic banned from this article. To be honest, if I had not been INVOLVED here (I have edited and commented at the talk page a few times), I would probably have blocked them, but a TB from this article seems to be the least that is required. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The summary at Talk:Toby_Young#Cleisthenes2 provides a useful set of diffs and links to existing consensus and discussions. Thanks -- (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • All I see here is a long running content dispute with neither side willing to meet each other's concerns, why is this at ANI and not an RFC? IffyChat -- 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Because it's already been to BLPN (twice) and extensive discussion on the talk page; there is consensus for the existing version, and all Cleisthenes2 is doing now is popping up occasionally and whitewashing that sentence. It's simply disruptive, which is why it's here. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I spent some time reviewing this, but have simply run out of time before I could fill out the AE forms in triplicate. A note for any other admin that Cleisthenes2 has been notified about Gamergate discretionary sanctions on 3/9, before his latest two reverts on 3/17 and today, so any uninvolved admin could impose a topic ban if they chose to; we don't have to have a 24 hour community discussion. Before I ran out of time to study up on how to do AE sanctions, I was about to block for 48 hours for repeated edit warring against clear consensus, and impose an indefinite topic ban from Toby Young, both as AE actions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this. Could you please inform me how to make an appeal to a higher level of administrator? I believe that NPOV is crucial to Wikipedia's mission and credibility, and this this case displays a good instance of how many editors (and administrators!) lack respect for it (or fail to understand it). I also note, again, the lack of clear consensus (a word which means that everybody agrees on something) in the discussions posted above. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
No, that's not what WP:CONSENSUS means. EEng 01:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to point out that Cleisthenes2 followed this edit by reverting the consensus lede for a twelfth time [45]. I have reverted (the first time I have done this, though I was INVOLVED through other discussions). At this point, it would be useful if an admin could action what Floquenbeam said above, because this is becoming ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I support the sanctions that Floquenbeam suggested. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done Let's hope they switch to doing something productive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Seek community sanctions (indef Tban) re user Bought the farm[edit]

There seems to be about 50-50 support for several broad T-bans versus for an indefinite block, with quite a few users supporting both/either. I note that the indef block has become more popular the longer the thread has run. Even the OP, NewsAndEventsGuy, who had originally proposed T-bans, changed to recommending a site ban some ways down, because of Bought the farm's comments on this very discussion.[46] For these reasons, I have blocked Bought the farm indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC).
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.

Seek community imposed Tban against Bought the farm (talk · contribs)
Topic areas Climate change, Energy, US Politics, broadly construed

First TBAN

New evidence

The permitting (for Keystone XL pipeline) comeing two months after Trump, only days into his presidency, signed an executive order aimed at reviving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines
"This proposed (Green New Deal) would effectively end U.S. energy independence gains and the benefits to the American middle class."
Identifies Trump investigations as a "notable example" of a Seditious conspiracy.... so far the entire thread is his and it sounds like tinfoil hat stuff to me
At Deep state in the United States this ed pushes addition of section "Seditious conspiracy and Attempted Bureaucratic Coup against the Trump Administration"
In DRAFT namespace, he uses Wikivoice to describe "descendants (of US slaves), who are mentally enslaved by the Democratic Party"
Bought on the Farm submitted this draft to AFC three times and was rejected all three times. Then he posted this article live on his own hook.
Asserts personal view that Deep state "is a very real thing" and changes lead from saying "conspiracy theory" to the far more credible "theory"
Tells how there was clapping after Trump said something about energy and then adds "However, the democrats did not applaud." (in the next edit he adds a Wordpress blog as an RS)
  • 19:19 and 19:30 BTF added copy vio content to Global warming that has since been RevDeleted by Diannaa
  • 19:27 I issued BTF a DS Alert for climate change
  • 19:30 I left BTF a noted cautioning about POV editing and reminding BTF about the prior Tban and DS Alert for US Politics
  • 19:37 at article talk BTF pushes new section "History of ongoing fearmongering"
  • 20:21, March 19, 2019 BTF admits his confirmation bias saying derisively, "I read the source as the beginning of the continual revisionist theory regarding this subject - Human existence on planet earth on the continual brink of disaster, due to our mere existence here."
  • I told Bought the Farm that per TPG section headings must be neutral and I deleted the word "fear-mongering" from the section (see edit summary this edit). No matter, after Dave souza collapsed the thread, Bought the farm simply started over, with a new thread simply titled "fear-mongering"
  • "'The Democracy Integrity Project (TDIP), is a multimillion-dollar stealth organization'"
  • uses scarequotes "that provides daily "research" briefings "
  • asserts ulterior movites in wikivoice "'spreading lies and fake news to keep the "Trump-Russian collusion" false news narrative alive in main stream media reporting. "
  • I would go on, but I hate to repeat the allegations in the BLP vios.

Topic ban[edit]

Having just come off of a 3-month Topic ban, here we are. This editor is incorrigible and is now producing low quality high controversial articles (Democratic plantation and The Democracy Integrity Project. Seems to me this editor should be community topic banned from energy, climate change, and US politics. They are on notice about DS for the last two subjects. Thanks for reading NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support indef Tban, as proposer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. All of that is correct, as evidenced by the constant WP:IDHT. Combine POV pushing with taking dozens of edits to make a single substantial addition, and it is still subpar. As an alternative, I'd support requiring them to cite a source for every statement they write (because that's where the problem lies), and a topic ban if they misrepresent sources. wumbolo ^^^ 23:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Just a note that the March 13 edit probably isn't "Democrat bashing". It is factual and of significance. Reliable sources often report on Democrats not clapping. That the edit wasn't supported by a reliable source is a separate issue. wumbolo ^^^ 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Exactly, there was several times during that speech when the Democrats did not clap after Trump made what most would consider to be uncontroversial statements. One that sticks out in my mind is when he announced that African-American unemployment was at an all-time low.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • But User:Wumbolo, are we really going to include every single time that the opposing party didn't applaud for one particular bit in every SOTU? That's cray cray. Such things only become encyclopedic when reliable secondary sources spend significant attention on it. We can't make that call, though we can discuss when the sources make it encyclopedic. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • A fact can be accurate and RS supported and still wielded as a POV club, and this is a textbook example. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
        • The lack of applause has been covered by reliable sources: [47] [48] [49]--Rusf10 (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN or indef
    • I've deleted The Democracy Integrity Project as a G10, with a dose of IAR, with the deletion summary "We're not your blog".
    • As for Democratic plantation it needs to go the same way, but I'm unsure how to proceed with this. I have, however, edited the ridiculous - and racist - opening sentence which talked about this racist slur in Wikipedia's voice EDIT: I've pushed it back to Draft, as I note that the Draft was rejected 3 times at AFC but he created it in mainspace anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't see that this editor is here to provide the encyclopedia with anything useful. A TBAN is the least that will suffice here. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This is mostly a content dispute. Although the editor needs to do a better job attributing opinions. I understand the term "Democratic Plantation" may be offensive, but it is a term used in reliable sources, so that page should not be deleted as per WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't know what was in the Democracy Integrity Project article, but a quick search shows it is a real organization.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Shall we just say that it was a very short unsourced article, and one of the sentences read "(TDIP) is essentially a "Trump-Russia 2.0: Dossier-Tied Firm Pitching Journalists Daily news on Collusion" spreading lies and fake news to keep the "Trump-Russian collusion" false news narrative alive in main stream media reporting" Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • perhaps deletion was appropriate then, but that doesn't change my overall view on the matter. The diffs above either contain no problems or minor ones due to poor sourcing or lack of attribution.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Do you not think that someone who's just come off a AP TBAN and is creating articles in mainspace like that probably shouldn't be editing in that realm at all? By the way, their reaction to this ANI is, er, this. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. And the problems signaled here make me wonder if the user understands anything about Wikipedia. Rusf10, if you think that this merely indicates something about attribution or poor sourcing, I can't help but wonder... NewsAndEventsGuy, I had no idea it was this bad, but it is. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • seeking community acceptance and a desire to contribute relevant info here. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • What does that comment mean? And what is this? Drmies (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: All I see here is a repost of something the President tweeted in which the President expresses his belief that there was a conspiracy by those within the government to remove him from office. I am almost certain that you personally do not agree with that, but you want to sanction someone for posting the president's tweets? That's really extreme.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Wait, you don't see that they were proposing to have Wikipedia categorize something as a "seditious conspiracy" based on a crazy tweet sketching a ridiculous conspiracy? When we say "notable case" on Wikipedia, in article space, what do you think we mean? And why do you say that I'd ban someone based on the president's tweets? Has he tweeted about this user? Drmies (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
        • I'll try to answer your questions. 1. Yes, I understand exactly what's being proposed here. Perhaps President Trump does think (rightly or wrongly) that it was a "seditious conspiracy". Wouldn't it be notable if the President (or any president) thought there was a conspiracy against him? After posting the tweets to the talk page, he then provided reliable sources that reported that these type of allegations have been made and that Senator Lindsey Graham wants to investigate them. All the editor did was try to start a discussion about whether it should be included or not. 2. Again, a discussion with other editors would determine the appropriate section of the article to include this in (if at all) 3. Because you're using this as an example of why he should be banned. Starting a discussion like he did is actually the right way to approach this, rather than just changing the article. 4. I don't know what you asking.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm inclined to see this as a WP:CIR issue, coupled with very strongly-held political beliefs. It's especially difficult to learn policy when you're working in a contentious area. Guettarda (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Supplemental ... now thinking site ban to be clear, I started this thread. If there were the slightest hope of reform or being able to work in any area, we would be seeing at least an iota of dialogue. Instead there is user talk ranting and NPA vios. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • he called you the "wiki-police"? that's a rather weak personal attack.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Guess I place a high value on desirable things like team work, collaboration, learning from mistakes, being willing to calmly discuss even the possibility of mistakes, resisting the urge to quibble with everyone in a discussion...... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban on energy, climate change, BLPs and post 1932 US politics, broadly construed. This editor is a dedicated POV pusher with zero understanding of and no interest in understanding the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Doesn't appear to understand our policies. If you don't understand our policies, you can't comply with them. If you can't comply with our policies, you can't edit in those topics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef topic ban on energy, climate, and post-1932 US politics – broadly construed. Clearly some major issues here about understanding Wiki-policy, especially in the areas of POV and sourcing. We'll see if they can learn the ropes by editing in other areas. As a side note, Bought the Farm's response to this ANI (see here for a totally wacky edit, and see above) do not inspire confidence. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support broad indef topic ban. It's been explained to user more than once what is wrong with his contributions to these areas. He either doesn't understand or doesn't care. There is no reason to force other editors to put up with this. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously, though I don't understand why this isn't simply an indef or site ban per WP:BATSHITCRAZY. EEng 03:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I would support a site ban. I'm not sure if a topic ban is gonna solve the whole issue. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef topic ban on energy, climate, and post-1932 US politics. NOTHERE, ADVOCACY, and COMPETENCE also apply. We are not a free webhosting service for batshit crazy stuff. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support broad indef topic ban is from energy, climate and post-1932 American politics, broadly construed, although I egree with User:EEng that a site ban or an indef would e more appropropriate. Doug Weller talk 06:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support broad indef topic ban The diffs above show attempts to introduce OR and unattributed analysis and syntheses, obviously in order to push an agenda - totally contrary to what we are supposed to be here for. Also happy to lend support to a site ban if that's the way the community leans. GirthSummit (blether) 08:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support broad indef topic ban leaning to indef block Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support until the user follows the policies. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support broad indef topic ban as a minimum. Other people have to waste time cleaning up. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support broad indef topic ban or an indef block – in my limited interaction, the user explicitly tried to ignore core policies "to descricribe the democratic fear-mongering on this subject. It's out there and real"[51] purely on their own synthesis from a primary source which said no such thing. . . dave souza, talk 11:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support I feel like this editor is probably trying to improve what they see as a liberal bias in Wikipedia and, absent guidance from someone who agrees with them politically but better understands how WP works, is struggling. I'd be much more happy with an indef tban if someone who shares Btf's basic political stance (not the whole conspiracy theory thing but just conservatism in general and a feeling that WP could improve neutrality re: politics) would try to help them, with a goal of eventually once again being able to edit what clearly is their main area of interest. Draft:Democratic Plantation isn't actually a bad start. --valereee (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Not according to WP:NEOLOGISM. There are 10 cited references. Nine of them show people using the term. Only one of them is about the term itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I meant as a draft, I could see it being possible for them to improve it with some guidance. --valereee (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef - A leopard can't change their spots. Ultimately the goal is to get this editor to stop behaving in this particular manner, yes? Even if topic banned in this particular area, chances are they'll just go cause disruption somewhere else on the site. Just go straight to the indef and let the editor make their case as to why they should be unblocked.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Indef block per WP:NOTHERE and don't waste time with topic bans. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef block per WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR given this sort of thing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef block WP:CIR etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support either topic ban or indef. This editor pointlessly insulted me as an AFC reviewer on Democratic Plantation. The draft said that this was a neoterism, and I took issue with using that term in a lede, and was told that a dictionary would have helped. Yes, but the lede shouldn't contain words that send the reader to a dictionary. The point is that this is a tendentious editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef block - IDHT POV-pushing on multiple topic areas means the community would save more time from a block than multiple topic bans. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support both - "Seditious conspiracy and Attempted Bureaucratic Coup against the Trump Administration" is all I needed to hear from this guy to know they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Thunderchunder (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef block This editor has been given enough rope. He/she is clearly not interested in building this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support both -- Editor is clearly a SPA caknuck ° needs to be running more often 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive AFD clerking by User:SS49[edit]

SS49 is indefinitely prohibited from sorting, relisting and closing discussions at AfD. GoldenRing (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
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.

In the last 3 months, SS49 has been repeatedly given advice, warnings and direction to stop improperly clerking AFDs, specifically as it pertains to relisting per WP:NOQUORUM and WP:RELISTBIAS. Today after asking SS49 a final time to stop clerking, TonyBallioni also reached out and SS49 declined both of our advice and stated that he would continue to relist no vote/discussion AFDs. Also worth noting that 572 of their last 1000 edits are related to AFD maintenance. Anyway, tl;dr here are the bullet points of why this is a problem:

  • Response to TonyBallioni after removal of my request, stating that AFD with no participation should be relisted. See below for multiple explanations of why they are incorrect. I did not include the numerous relists where NQ/soft delete should have applied due to no participation, but here are some of the most recent:
    • HSC Medical Center twice relisted by SS, no discussion at any point
    • Glenn Taranto no comments at relist by SS49 on 3/13, two keeps at relist by SS49 on 3/20
    • Meiling Melancon one week keep prior to relist on 3/20, though I suspect an admin would have made a judgement call to delete given the only response was actually not based within any sort of policy, that aside, the point is that he's not just relisting "no comment/vote" AFDs
    • Nathan Gorman two keeps prior to first relist (not by SS) no comments between that relist and 3/20 relist by SS
    • Committee_for_the_Abolition_of_Illegitimate_Debt relisted originally by NA1K and then by SS on 3/18 with no discussion or votes between, nor a rationale for a second relist
    • Kitty Crimes two keeps prior to SS relisting, even the nom is unsure
    • Jennifer Wright relisted originally by NA1K after a few comments and one keep, then again by SS with no discussion in the week between first list and no rationale for relist
    • Bedros Kapamajian relisted twice in a row by SS, the first following 2 keeps, 1 delete and the second with no discussion between what so ever.

I'm requesting a topic ban for SS49 from clerking AFD (deletion sorting, relisting, closing.) As noted above, several editors have tried to discuss this with them, only to be met with hostility or immediate archiving of the concern. This is not conducive behavior to a collaborative environment, it's a time sink and disruptive. I intend to respect their wishes that I refrain from editing their talk page but as per ANI policy, my final edit there is this notification. Praxidicae (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban given the history here, which I was unaware of when I talked to them, and their response to Praxidicae on her talk page, I don't think talking will do much good. To be fair to them, yes, there are many admins who will relist low discussion AfDs (even though community consensus and policy has been that this should be the exception rather than the rule for the last two years-- PROD is the default for expired AfDs), the community is broadly on board with the ideas behind RELISTBIAS and typically non-admins should be relisting discussions where delete is a valid option under policy since they are unable to implement it. To address the double standard argument that I'm sure is going to be raised: one of the reasons that soft delete isn't used more often by admins likely is that there is a pretty continuous group of non-admin AfD relisters who it seems just wait to relist. The membership changes over time, but when one stops a new user appears to do it. We need to actually enforce the policy rather than just accept a status quo that the community as a whole has rejected and that people complain about every time it is raised.
    Also, I'll take this opportunity to encourage admins to follow the RfC that was held on this and evaluate expired AfDs as PRODs rather than just relist. This is what the policy is, and non-admins follow our example. It is difficult to explain to users that they should not be the ones interpreting the deletion policy when they don't have the ability to select the default outcome called for by the policy when some admins seem to be ignoring the policy themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Support formal warning per Bsherr and Serial Number 54129's comments after I made this, and the message on my talk, I'm fine with no TBAN for now, because the ANI thread itself seems to have done the point. At the same time, given how they've reacted to Praxidicae and other's comments in the past, a warning from ANI should document this in case the behaviour does not stop. Trust but verify/document and all. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. SS49 has not edited at AfD subsequent to the most recent discussion at SS49's talk page mentioned above, and has now (subsequent to the above comments) posted this message that suggests SS49 will be showing improved behavior. I think a wait-and-see approach is justified for now; hopefully the message has sunk in. --Bsherr (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, oppose per WP:ROPE, mainly because—as Bsherr's diff suggests—there is a possibility (however belated) that "the penny's dropped" and they finally realise the degree of their disruption. However, two caveats. One, that it is emphasised that this piece of rope is so short and tenuous, they couldn't tie their laces with it. Secondly, that they realise that this is without any prejudice—if they touch another XfD—to an admin blocking on the basis of Praxidicae's diffs. No trip to ANI; no discussion; no promises. I note, too, that in their comment they says they will hardly relist AfDs; this is less reassuring, and they should either make their topic voluntarily, or the community will do it for them. ——SerialNumber54129 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support formal warning per Tony et al; also respectfully suggest that SS49 apologise for the snark/dismissive attitude towards Praxidicae, who took the time to offer constructive advice several times before this ended up here. GirthSummit (blether) 17:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Full disclosure - I !voted on one of the AfDs listed above that was relisted. I wasn't that bothered by the relisting, and that hasn't influenced my support for the warning, but noting for transparency.GirthSummit (blether) 17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for your support. Deletion sorting is fine. I will hardly relist AfDs. ~SS49~ {talk} 18:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
SS49 Can you clarify on what you mean by "hardly relist"? Are you going to address your combative WP:IDHT approach to editors addressing your behavior? Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Praxidicae, OK I understood I won't do relisting. If sorting is also a problem, I won't sorting too. From now I won't relist any discussions. Thanks ~SS49~ {talk} 23:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I was typing a response about coming around to potentially withdrawing my TB request given the support for a formal warning here, however SS49 has continued to edit at AFD, although not relisting, I find it somewhat problematic that he is still doing maintenance tasks despite this lengthy discussion and with no acknowledgement or assurances that there won't be further disruption. His request on Tony's talk, combined with this edit on mine and this ani comment does not leave me with much hope that rope will prevent further disruption. Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban as per WP:COMPETENCE. I have no confidence that SS49 has understood the nature of the problem here. He/she should not be clerking AFD if he/she does not understand policy and procedures. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeees; "I've got a bad feeling about this"—specifically that it's the penny has not dropped. @SS49:, much as I appreciate your thanking me for my post above, it would be very wrong to read into it any kind of support for your position. Quite the opposite; I was speaking against a topc ban on account of you—at that point—having seemingly stopped from clerking AfD, and on condition that you ceased all activity at XfD. Which, it now apears, has not happened. ——SerialNumber54129 18:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129:, I won't do deletion sorting and relisting from now. ~SS49~ {talk} 23:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There seem to be some major WP:CIR issues here. As WBG's last warning may indicate, a topic ban on AfDs may not be enough, but I think that's the best course of action for now. (On a side note - I didn't see your reply to me on your talk page until now, Praxidicae, and you're right. Sorry.) ansh666 18:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. SS49's "Deletion sorting is fine. I will hardly relist AfDs" really doesn't give me any confidence that the problems are understood, and that is reinforced by the comments linked above by Praxidicae. I'm seeing problems with comprehension and competence here, and I think this is someone who just isn't suited to clerking activities. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    I'll just add that SS49's various comments suggest they are not a native speaker of English. And while a native command of English is perhaps not necessary for understanding and performing clerking tasks on the English language Wikipedia, I'm not seeing sufficient competence in our post-Norman tongue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Anyone who doesn't follow advice given to them on their talk page basically by definition lacks the competence to be relisting discussions or doing other similar work. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support tban. The large percentage of their overall work spent clerking, given the issues well documented here, is concerning. Even more concerning is that they couldn't accurately discern that doing nothing in AfD in the near future was the right course given the comments that were being offered here. I feel like they used up what little ROPE might have been extended during this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Formal warning. What's this editor's offense, departure from a guideline and dismissing others' advice? What percentage of the community is guilty of the same crime, 25%? More? The concern that this editor's actions was biasing AfDs was a legitimate one, but generally speaking we don't sanction editors simply for departing from the rules. This editor has a proven interest in AfDs and should be commended for that. They just have to learn how to do it right. Some editors with listening problems just need a kick in the pants. If they continue not to listen, that's another story. R2 (bleep) 21:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. There are masssive CIR issues at play here regarding the relisting and AFDs in general. It either shows a clear lack of understanding of policy or a refusal to abide by policy and community established norms. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support relisting discussions is almost always a lazy action that helps nothing. Instead of relisting exercise some judgement and !vote. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Non-admins should be discouraged from relisting discussions, especially the ones with no / low participation. Let an admin relist it or (better) close as a soft-delete. AfD needs more voters, not clerks. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban on AfD clerking. SS49's recent responses suggest a basic misunderstanding of clerking's purpose, which is to reduce demand on the valuable time and attention of editors. A topic ban on AfD clerking will leave SS49 free to apply their own time and attention as a participant in AfD discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - clearly warranted. In fact, this feels like a fairly modest gesture in recognition of obvious CIR issues, troubling responses, refusal to communicate, and refusal to respond to legitimate feedback. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban on AfD clerking -- long-standing issues, coupled with a lack of communication. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought there were no problems with deletion sorting so I sorted again. If you all want me to leave AfDs, it's ok. I won't harm Wikipedia. I won't do sorting too. ~SS49~ {talk} 23:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I accept my mistakes and apologize for that. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As both the writer of WP:Relist bias and the person who pushed for the current version of WP:NOQUORUM, I think there is enough to warrant a topic ban here. This isn't the first time these issues have been raised, nor the second. It seems like this editor has struggled to either listen to or understand the feedback they've received. If that's the case, they shouldn't be closing discussions – an activity that heavily relies on their ability to comprehend and weigh the arguments made by everyone in a discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 04:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Formal warning I don't see a huge issue with the diffs that have been posted - relisting discussions for a first or second time really isn't that much of an issue in my opinion. Based on the history here, I do think a formal warning is necessary, since I think the goal should be to expose the behaviour is not welcome on the behalf of the community. I know this is against consensus at this point, but I think a topic ban is an overreach so far. We should be encouraging SS49 to communicate properly and learn when a relist is proper - I'm not a relister, but I would have relisted myself in some of these situations. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban First that say thay they "will hardly relist AfDs", and later that they "won't do deletion sorting and relisting from now". I don't have confidence based on their earlier "I want to be blocked. Please block me. Haha" comment A topic ban effectively just formalizes their pledge to not relist anymore, which is (unfortunately) necessary based on persistent concerns about their competence (WP:CIR).—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban – non-admin clerking at AfD is rarely helpful and easily subject to bias. SS49 has demonstrated a failure to follow community norms in this admin area, and has consistently resisted attempts to hold them accountable. A topic ban is both appropriate and necessary. Bradv🍁 13:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sanctions aside, it seems like there might be consensus to change the rule to explicitly prohibit non-admins from relisting AfDs. R2 (bleep) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
This is the wrong forum for that, but I am strongly in favor of banning editors who are not sysops from doing any closes at AfD that are not procedural closes (e.g. article was speedy deleted or it's been withdrawn by the nom with all other participating editors favoring it being kept). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this idea and nominate you to propose this. :) Natureium (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
How about instead we talk about it at a proper forum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Asking for advice to avoid being accused of edit warring[edit]

Guy Macon and I are embroiled in a dispute involving White genocide conspiracy theory, Population decline, The Turner Diaries, the ORN and NPOVN noticeboards, WP:JIMBOTALK (where I complained because there was a related discussion ongoing and I felt like I was being stalked and bullied -- but that only escalated the problem), and WT:OR#"Directly related to the topic of the article" does not mean explicitly referring to it, which is a balanced discussion on the central issue involved. I've engaged with him civilly for the past three days, but I no longer think he is acting in good faith.

He had objected to a paragraph about birth rates I added to White genocide conspiracy theory#Criticism because he, along with several other people, considered it original research because it was not related directly enough to the subject. So I added essentially the same paragraph, plus another source which two editors had approved of, to Population decline#Interpretation of statistical data, which he has now deleted twice; diffs: [52], [53]. On the talk page he said that the inclusion was OR, but he didn't say which statements, if any, were unsupported by reliable sources, and he didn't say that the issue of low birthrates was unrelated to the article's subject. However, in his initial edit summary he said that he was deleting the passage because of WP:NPOV, which he didn't mention on the talk page. The only third party on that article's talk page says it should be included in the body, not the introduction which is the only place that I've ever included it, although I originally proposed adding it to the intro. I would like to replace the paragraph in the body of the article. Question 1: If I do that now, would that risk the appearance of edit warring? If so, which dispute resolution method is appropriate in this case?

I also don't think Guy is being sincere because of his false claim that, "you won't find any specific mention [of] the white genocide conspiracy theory in The Turner Diaries."[54] I'm sure he didn't read the book or do a thorough search for sources on the topic, as explained at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Does The Turner Diaries specifically mention the white genocide conspiracy theory? which I copied to the book's talk page to support the correct claim there. He has repeatedly been deleting my replies to him on that and other topics at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Proposed Criticism section inclusion; diffs: [55], [56], [57]. He thinks he is allowed to delete my interspersed replies to his several bullet points even after I restored his original comment to its precise initial state. Does he have the right to delete my interspersed comments just because I quoted his subsequently? WP:TPO appears to say just the opposite. Question 2: If I tried to replace my reply to his several bullet points for a third time in Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Deleted responses, could I be accused of edit warring? If so, how should I handle this?

In any case, I'm going to step back for a few days during which I intend to limit my editing to this thread only. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I see a complicated content dispute, just small advice to you, some things on this wikipedia are just not worth the stress, take those pages off your watchlist and let them go, in time the articles will get improved as is the way of things and you will also be happier. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Standard ANI response: As is my policy, if any administrator tells me to stop doing something I stop doing it immediately, whether I agree or not. If I really feel the warning was out of line (this has not happened yet) I will discuss it with the admin on their talk page rather than ignoring the warning. I would urge any admin with an itchy trigger finger to please try warning me before considering a block. I have a history of 13 years with no blocks and want to keep it that way.
OK, let's look at a timeline with diffs:
At 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC) EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) edited one of my comments.[58]
WP:TPOC says "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent" and "you should stop if there is any objection".
The help page WP:TALKPAGE says: "Add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it."
At 03:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I removed the edits to my comment with the edit summary "Deleted clear WP:TPOC violation. Don't edit other peoples comments."[59] (1RR)
At 03:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I warned EllenCT on their talk page.[60]
At 07:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC) EllenCT cut and pasted my comment to a new section (retaining my signature, making it look as if I had written those words in that section) and once again interspersed her comments.[61] (1RR)
At 11:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I deleted the edited cut and paste of my comment.[62] (2RR)
At that time I added the following advice:
Nowhere in TPOC or any other policy is there an exception to the rule against editing other people's comments just because you tacked on a {{tl|interrupt}} template, nor are you allowed to cut and past other people's comments (along with their signature) and edit the cut and pasted version. Please read WP:TPOC and follow Wikipedia's rules.
The usual way that this is handled without a WP:TPOC violation is to use this format:
In the comment above, Larson E. Whipsnade says "the moon is made of green cheese". I disagree. According to[63] the moon is made of Regolith. --~~~~'
At 17:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC) EllenCT ignored the above advice and once again posted the edited version of my comment.[64] (2RR)
At 18:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I reverted the edit of my comment with the edit summary "Editing other people's comments, including interspersing your own in them, is a violation of WP:TPOC."[65] (3RR)
It is incredibly annoying to write something only to discover that it now has someone interrupting it after every sentence with a rebuttal. It is also annoying to find that -- despite your objections -- a talk page now looks like you posted the exact same message to two different sections, and you are not allowed to remove the copy. Might I humbly suggest a WP:BOOMERANG? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are annoyed that I rebutted each of your bullet points, but why do you think you have the right to delete my quoting them, along with my original replies? EllenCT (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Answer 1 The content is disputed and there is no consensus for it on the talk page, so don't add it back. You could leave a note at WT:SOCIOLOGY to get more eyes.

Answer 2 Don't use the {{interrupt}} template anymore; per it's documentation, it's only to be used when the in line responses can't be undone because they're too old. It makes following a conversation impossible to follow. Copying Guy's remarks again and using the {{interrupt}} tag is just as confusing. Instead, do what Guy did for your comments: Quote them, in a way that makes it clear to the reader that you're quoting him, and then respond to the quote. Most people do this by using {{green}} or italics or a {{quotebox}}.

Answer 3 I know there was no Question 3, but @Guy Macon:, while I can understand the frustration, please dial back the hostility some. It makes it that much more difficult for uninvolved editors to be able to, or to want to, participate. This will all eventually work out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thank you. I will do those things after a few days. I had no idea inline replies were deprecated.
I'd like to ask your advice about a related issue. I started editing these articles after reading the New Zealand mosque terrorist's manifesto, and then doing a web search on the keywords he repeats in front of it, many permutations of which (e.g. [white birth rates Europe]) lead to sites like [66] and [67] on the first page of Google search results. How can we best help impressionable researchers seeing such sites for the first time as they look for answers on such topics get a more balanced, less extremist point of view countering those organized attempts at radicalization? Is it something that is easier to do elsewhere than Wikipedia? Are there people at Google who monitor these sorts of things? EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
You mean how do we make Google searches show better results? I suppose one step would be to have good Wikipedia articles that would take the top slot, but there's nothing WP can do to push the loony results further down the Google search results page beyond that. I know very little about Google's algorithms or their monitoring system, but my understanding is they really don't like to get involved, and prefer to let the algorithm do what it does. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • EllenCT Forgive the fly-by response, but I am just out the door and wanted to respond to you quickly before doing so, since I think the issues here are easily addressed if further entrenchment by parties does not first set in: 1) the process you are looking for to resolve this stalemate is a WP:Request for comment, which should, given the topic of this article, attract a fair few community members to help resolve the deadlock. However, whoever writes up the RfC request should be careful to make sure that it is neutrally worded--if you're feeling uncertain of availing yourself of this process because of unfamiliarity, let me know and I will assist at my next earliest opportunity in opening and framing the discussion, as a neutral third party. 2) Guy is absolutely correct that it is generally not permissable to break up another editor's comments into chunks by embedding your own responses within them. This is non-standard for the project and becomes far too messy as discussions progress (and people respond to your responses) and in general. It will keep people from being able to easily track the course of the discussion and the "owner" of various statements and assertions. It really shouldn't be done in any event, and once Guy reverted and asked you not to repeat such edits, you definitely are required to stop at that juncture.
I hope this helps address your questions. In generally, this clearly a content dispute, rather than a behavioural issue, so this is not likely to be the ideal space for further debate on the underlying issues. As I said before, if you two are at a loggerheads, then RfC is your best way out--let me know if you'd like some help with it. Snow