text:
that should be condoned or encouraged. Also, the user who started this section only tackled the topics I was addressing once throughout the discussion, and it was to say "thank you for your inputs". A user who avoids the discussion at hand and only focuses on the other part's etiquette is only bound to make the argument worse. This section should have never been started, and Grandpallama is not using ANI properly. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything you have said thus far is disingenuous garbage or unsubstantiated allegation. Moreover, I'm pinging NinjaRobotPirate as the only admin who has interacted with this account and who also happens to be a checkuser. It's been brought to my attention (and some digging into diffs substantiates the duck-like behavior) that you are almost certainly Walter Sobchak0, indeffed for chronic incivility and WP:NOTHERE behavior. Behavior, editing interests, and diction are exactly the same. One doesn't have to look much farther than the ANI report that resulted in your previous block. First, your edits completely overlap in terms of editing interests, including the films that both accounts have touched. In that ANI report, Walter Sobchak0 tells other users to "grow up" or "leave WP editing to those who know what they're doing", just as you have; Walter Sobchak0 complains that an ANI report is pulling on a skirt, just as you have; Walter Sobchak0 complained about "lumpen", just as you have in the hatted talkpage comment I cited, and complained about how they lower the level of discourse, just as you have; Walter Sobchak0 complained about one of his removed edits that Jordi Borràs may be a photo-journalist but he's still an expert in far-right politics which is almost exactly the same defense you offered about inserting similar language on the very same talkpage a year later ; Walter Sobchak0 ends complaints about how other editors don't grasp his positions with statements like I don't know why this is so hard to understand., verbatim as you have; Walter Sobchak0 misrepresents the gathering of diffs of their history, just as you have here there has to be some form of admonishment policy against what Asqueladd just did, rescuing past conversations out of oblivion and lumping them all together to attack a user's character in order to make a (political) point.; Walter Sobchak0 uses the skirt metaphor a second time, almost verbatim to you, followed by (again almost verbatim) your "big deal, I don't edit here much anyway" comment at the opening of this thread So in a nutshell, you felt protective of "your" wiki article and came here pulling the headmaster's skirt: "señorita, me ha insultado!". Big deal. The worst that can happen to me is being banned from a place that I only visit sporadically--and rather whimsically, I must say. NinjaRobotPirate, please let me know if you feel I need to open a formal SPI or if the quacking here is loud enough to dispense with that. Also pinging CactusWriter as the blocking admin of Walter Sobchak0 for any insight they might have. Grandpallama (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Overlooked this additional obvious quack from the same ANI report: I'm not earning a salary from wikipedia. Grandpallama (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked CodeInconnu for 48 hours for his personal attack that I removed on this noticeboard.
 * Yeah, definitely looks like a sock to me. In fact, it looks like CactusWriter already indefinitely blocked him as a sock while I was comparing the two accounts' edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've blocked User:CodeInconnu indefinitely as a sock of User:Walter_Sobchak0 per the WP:DUCK evidence. There were a couple of other clear similarities in their film plot edits. I'll file an SPI for the record. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Grandpallama (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops--and Berean Hunter, too! Grandpallama (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I take it, that when CodeInconnu says here: "If you're proven right [that I'm a sock], this is just another station along the way" he means that if he is blocked he will just start a new account. So we should be on the lookout for such. Paul August ☎ 02:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As well that he may IP edit in between now and the next potential sock. Grandpallama (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User:HD Slayer 38484
User continuing to add inappropriate content without references.

Here they remove the warning confirming that they do not plan to add sources.

The text they are adding is very poor.

We should probably block them IMO. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeff as WP:NOTHERE considering their outright refusal to use sources, and for this eugenics pushing edit.  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeffed per the atrocious eugenics diff.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

<IP_ADDRESS>
Over at Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us an IP has maded some well dodgy posts.

[]

[]

That have nothing to do with the topic and are OR soapboxing (and violations of BLP).

I went to their talk page to find there are already multiple warnings going back a while. So I think warnings are not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's probably a school. I blocked the IP for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User Nicoljaus
User Nicoljaus returned his version in article John of Kronstadt, did not allow me to edit the article at all. He does not write neutrally. I suggested to write according to Kizenko, , but he doesn’t want. He wrote that it will be a fan club. I consider this to be an absurdity. I am sorry, if my edits were edit warring. Aleksei m (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, where should I write or can I correct his phrase? Aleksei m (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The best way to solve this is talking it out, which I see you folks have been doing on the talk page. I will chime in my 2 cents there to try to move this content dispute along. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What Aleksei m does is ordinary trolling. All his comments, all his nit-picking is nonsense. He himself will not contribute anything constructive to the article. He has one goal – to remove from the article all the negative facts about John (anti-Semitism, the patronage of the sect, the excuse of Kishinev pogrom, the shameful escape from Kronstadt) and make the Life of the saint from this article. To do this, he will seek a ban for his opponents. So he acts everywhere.Wlbw68 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is boomerang territory. I tried to engage at the talk page, and got a combination of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT problems. This dispute? Over the use of the word "moreover". Aleksei seems impervious to logic, and is incensed that someone would use the "moreover" instead of "however" or "also". Perhaps a language barrier? Or just a competence barrier. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained why it is no need to use the word "moreover" and did not receive substantive objections on the Talk Page of the article. Aleksei m (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's a language barrier here, as "moreover" does not connotate what Aleksei seems to think it does. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the barrier? I have provided a link according to which the word "moreover" means "also and more importantly" . Why is the second phrase "After the 1990 the rehabilitation of the sectarian Ioannites started" more important for the article than first phrase: "John was subsequently canonized by the Moscow Patriarchate"? Aleksei m (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Per dictionary.com, moreover means "in addition to what has been said; further; besides"(ref1), no mention of importance. Per Merriam Webster, "in addition to what has been said : BESIDES"(ref2), no mention of importance. Per the Macmillan dictionary, "used for introducing an additional and important fact that supports or emphasizes what you have just said"(ref3), does not say more important. I do not think it means what you think it means.-- Darth Mike (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Macmillan Publishers writes "used for introducing an additional and important fact". Why it is necessary to point out this fact as important, while it is not directly related to John of Kronstadt? Aleksei m (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While you still clearly do not understand the meaning of the word, perhaps lets examine why you don't like the perceived meaning. The Ionnites were a sect based around John of Kronstadt, thus their rehabilitation at the same time of John of Kronstadt are facts that seem associated. Do you not like this association? Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not like that the information about the rehabilitation of the sectarians is presented as more important than the canonization of Father John. For example: When the added information is of approximately equal "strength," use in addition or also...When the added information is stronger than the information preceding it, use moreover or furthermore . Aleksei m (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No opinion on the underlying issues, but Aleksei is correct that moreover carries a distinct connotation (if not denotation) of "Even more significantly", "And not only that", or "And here's the clincher...". EEng 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Long-term financial vandalism at selected pages
This is the second time asking help for this matter due to continued vandalism. Last time it was archived without even a reply. Last post:

A Mammootty fanboy is repeatedly exaggerating the budget of Mamangam (2019 film) and reducing the budget of his professional rival Mohanlal's Marakkar: Arabikadalinte Simham, disregarding sources. This is the nth time this guy is fudging the budget, even after multiple range blocks. IPs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (and probably more). Because of a single guy, both pages were page protected. Sometimes also damaging other pages by reducing the box office numbers of Mohanlal films and exaggerating Mammootty films, a terrible version of that can be seen in the 10th and 11th IPs. Another trick of this guy for reducing the budget of Marakkar is exaggerating it first to a HUGE number beyond expecting and then reducing it in the next edit to a desired low figure like he was correcting it. Probably unaware that there is a page history and people can see.

New IPs: 1, 2. This guy has now created user accounts, Ayisha1209, you can see other edits are all exaggerating the box office numbers of Mammootty films and the same "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit PHP7", now blocked and created M0hamedr0shan007 the next day , same activity and articles and the "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit PHP7" and there is Xskullxxrider, Bharathkm54321. Please use a check user or anything and find out who this is. 2405:204:D285:C47F:955F:3C32:2586:C082 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A film about breast cancer screening is a worthy project and I hope those involved can resolve their differences. EEng 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? 2405:204:D30A:9DB9:854D:97BC:7D37:892A (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Mamangam. At least I'm keeping your thread from being archived. EEng 01:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea is to resolve this issue. It's not about thread archiving. 2409:4073:8F:CF10:6C80:6F50:F05A:966E (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's an ongoing war between fans of Mammootty and Mohanlal. This is yet another permutation of that. See Sockpuppet investigations/Harirajmohanhrm/Archive, and note that is from 2014. It doesn't stop, no matter how many blocks and page protections are placed. We have to remain vigilant and whack them as they come up. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The same vandalist

Actually this person keep changing his IP for editing pages. So, it's difficult to stop his vandalism.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * <IP_ADDRESS>/19 and <IP_ADDRESS> are both blocked now. It is a sock and may be reverted.

Wild Cats
I can see that you took my edits of categories on many different pages to be a sort of vandalism (stalking my user history in retaliation). But I see that you took the time to add and improve sources and content where indicated, and this is the constructive outcome which is desirable from all Wikipedia edits. I thank you for taking the time to make the corrections and build the accuracy of these articles. If the category tags are saying something which the article does not support, they do not belong. It is Wikipedia policy to avoid overcategorization WP:OVERCAT. Not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define. When a non-neutral category such as LGBT is pasted onto an article which makes no mention, passing mention, or slight mention of a subjects sexual identification and association with LBGT culture this is not appropriate for Wikipedia - UNLESS high quality sources associate the subject with this as well. There are many number of magazines, blogs, and small media outlets which make very clear that they exist to promote a LGBT bias. These are poor sources for Wikipedia in general (You will not find a single LGBT news source listed as reliable at WP:RSP). If these are the only published references to a subjects association with LGBT culture, then it does not meet the WP standard of "Defining Characteristic". And the CATS should be removed until the article and/or sources are improved.

"The content of each biography contained in this category (LGBT) or its subcategories should clarify how being LGBT is a significant part of the public life or notability of its subject, according to reliable published sources." Category:LGBT people. "LGBT is or was a significant part of their public life or notability"

"Famous persons who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not included" List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people

In the instance of Chavela Vargas the CATS were saying more than the article could support. The only mention in the article of her sexual identification was from a book which the article did not cite as a source. You then cited the book from an unreliable source Pride Publishing Inc. If you are confident that the subject meet WP policy then you should not have trouble finding more reliable sources to support the statements and the CATS.

In the instance of Calvin Klein The article says simply that Klein dated a man (appearing as a rumor) and the source cited is tabloid journalism with suspect reliability WP:RSP. This, on it's own, fails all of the points noted from WP policy above and the use of the CATS: LGBT Men / LGBT Fashion designers is clearly making a statement which is not contained or cited in the article itself. Klein is a well known subject. If LGBT is a significant part of Klein's public life or notability then there should be abundant reliable sources which could be used to support improving the article to contain this information. Without this - the CATS are unsupported as well and may be deleted.

This problem has been identified among many thousands of articles and I intend to help edit and improve as many as I can. I would ask you to join me on this journey, but unfortunately you have publicly indicated a personal bias in LGBT topics WP:COI WP:NPOV. Caution must be exercised when working on articles where a conflict of interest may be readily identified. Thanks again for helping where you can.--Luke Kindred (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Could I ask for your guidance here? You have more experience in these matters. Specifically the category removals on Alan Bates, and Calvin Klein. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia most certainly does not have any rule that LGBT-themed sources are verboten. WP:RSP is not a complete list of all the sources we're ever allowed to use — it is is a reference list for the status of a certain specific tier of sources that tend to come up for a lot of debate about their status, but it is not a comprehensive list of every single source that we accept at all. A source being listed there is not necessarily a green light to use it (note that it lists many sources as bad ones), and a source not being listed there is not a strike against using it. It is most certainly not the case that if a source is not listed there, it is automatically unreliable and unusable — there are, in fact, many LGBT-oriented sources, including The Advocate and Daily Xtra and the Washington Blade and Bay Windows and the Bay Area Reporter and the Windy City Times and others, that are perfectly acceptable for use as sources for Wikipedia content where appropriate. We have criteria for what defines a reliable source, and there are plenty of LGBT-focused publications that fully meet them — there are also many that don't, but that's true of the non-LGBT webmedia landscape too.
 * And you know what else isn't listed in RSP? Any Canadian news sources at all; ABC News; CBS News; NBC News; any American newspapers besides the NYT, the WaPo and the LA Times. If RSP meant what Luke Kindred seems to think it means, in other words, then nearly the entire North American news media landscape would be unusable. But again, the fact that they're not listed there doesn't mean they're unacceptable sources — it just means their reliability doesn't come up as a subject of debate at the reliable source discussion boards very often, because it isn't actually in question at all.
 * Now, all of that said, I'm not particularly willing to fight to the death over the sexualities of either Alan Bates or Calvin Klein; I don't know a lot about either of their personal lives, and I will admit that the content that's in the articles is kind of ambiguous about how they did or didn't identify themselves. But Luke Kindred is definitely misusing RSP — if he thinks that removing content about an LGBT person's sexual orientation from their article, just because it's referenced to sources that haven't been listed in RSP, then he's very wrong about what RSP is even for. And WP:ANI may come into play if he doesn't stop doing that. And that's all I'm going to say about that. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight on this, you said it much better than I think I would have. Luke Kindred seems to have been systematically removing LGBTQ categories and content. Each article I came across led me to dig further. Let’s hope this resolved the issue. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Gleeanon409, I have reverted your addition of LGBT categories to Calvin Klein. In order for categories regarding sexuality to be included in a BLP they must be supported by reliably sourced content, there must be self-identification from the subject of the article, and it needs to be a defining characteristic of the individual. WP:BLPCAT and it's subset WP:EGRS is clear on the policy in this case.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCAT doesn’t seem to have any information? It’s a redirect to an extensive page but I didn’t see category info with the rules you outlined? I’ll look into EGRS. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCAT should take you directly the correct section of the policy. If you're not able to find it, Biographies of living persons should work.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCAT didn’t seem to work but WP:EGRS was perfect! Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Please also read through Biographies of living persons as it documents the overriding policy regarding categories in biographies of living persons. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

NOTHERE behaviour by Cassandrathesceptic
This recent ANI discussion resulted in the indefinite block of User:<IP_ADDRESS>, by User:Cullen328, as WP:NOTHERE.

Towards the end of the discussion, subsequent to the indef decision, I noted that "A number of participants in this discussion and on my talk page have raised suspicions regarding close similarities to the POVs, editing, misattribution of views by, and IP range of, User:Cassandrathesceptic and their plethora of associated IP socks. It has also been noted that whether the individuals responsible are the same or different, their behaviour is equally unhelpful. Should we also act to close off this 7-year+ similarly hugely time-wasting, NOTHERE campaign?"

This open incitement, today, by Cassandrathesceptic to <IP_ADDRESS> to "register with a Wiki-user name then start again" puts their WP:NOTHERE attitude in no doubt. Can sanctions be imposed please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Add trolling the Scots and very limited activity, this user is not here to help. I have blocked. Guy (help!) 21:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Young blood transfusion
Had legal threats placed on my talk page. Also had them emailed to me.

and likely the same and related to the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked the first IP for making legal threats, but leaving this open in case a different kind of block is appropriate and also for a WP:DOLT analysis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Vague legal threats, unclear what their relation to the topic is, and the "defamatory" content (presumably the negative information in the article, like the issues with a study, the fact that a doctor was practicing medicine without a license, or the general consensus that the practice is snake oil) was all well-sourced from reputable sources. This is a POV-pusher resorting to legal threats, plain and simple. Good block, no DOLT here. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's try not to break NPA, even in edit summaries, eh Creffett? I know POV pushers can be frustrating, but rudeness merely escalates and inflames the situation. Thanks - Killer Chihuahua 13:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , okay, I thought it was un-directed enough that it wasn't a PA (and I genuinely didn't mean it with regards to the IPs here, it was more of a general sentiment), but if you think it was over the line, then bad on me. Comment retracted, I'd strike it if you could actually strike edit summaries. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, I could see you were making a pun. Just, it was calling people dolts, which is an attack. There are more polite ways of telling people that a certain belief is pseudoscience.  You just have to resist the straight lines and puns calling out to you!  :-D  Killer Chihuahua  13:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I blame 's corrupting influence. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't get the reference. Can you fill me in? A Dolphin (squeek?) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's /'s reference; I'm just the corrupting influence. EEng 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The COI aspect becomes clear in the email they sent me. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat <IP_ADDRESS>
On my talk page: This came after repeated removal of sourced content and a warning about that on their talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * lwarned. El_C 16:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And Continuing: not here to improve the encyclopedia. Enough is enough. Pam  D  09:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for doubling-down on legal threat. Yunshui 雲 水 09:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Tracy Von Doom: Master socker or innocent victim?
I'm here about a user called Tracy Von Doom that I stumbled across. According to User talk:Tracy Von Doom they have had multiple accounts blocked previously as socks of (at least two?) blocked users. But they deny they were guilty, and seem to be doing great work. I've no clue what's going on here, or what to do, or even if anything even should be done. Seems though these blocks might be wrong. Anybody have any thoughts on this? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are legitimate uses for multiple accounts. The user there seems to have had many accounts, and sometimes they've had those accounts blocked as evident socks, but they are saying the uses of the accounts were legitimate. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocking question
I am concerned about several recent blocks at AIV, for example a recent IP was warned, and self reverted. I commented that they'd self reverted and I'd watch to see if they made any further edits. They didn't, but another admin chose to block for 6 months. This is not the first time I've seen this admin block editors with no warning, very stale warnings, etc., and block editors when another admin has declined blocking, using the AIV decline templates to give their rationale for not blocking. AIV is not insert nickel, get a block - admins are supposed to use discretion. Blocking policy is still Blocks should not be punitive and AIV is clear that vandalism must be recent and ongoing. I hesitate to call the admin who is doing this out, as I'm certain s/he feels s/he is protecting the encyclopedia, but I am at a loss as to how to address this issue with them. AIV has become an easy way to get someone blocked, I'm sorry to say - if someone is reported, 99/100 they're blocked regardless of whether it's a content dispute, edit war, test edit, etc. This is an incident for which I am seeking guidance in how to handle. Suggestions welcome. Killer Chihuahua 18:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide diffs and name the administrator? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well yes I can, but I'm trying to avoid a confrontational situation, which is why I didn't. I thought I was fairly clear with "I hesitate to call the admin who is doing this out" but if you cannot comment on this without shaming the admin in question, perhaps you'd best either sit this out or wait until it becomes clear I'm to receive no help unless and until I do so. Killer Chihuahua  18:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would ordinarily discuss it with the other admin either via talkpage, or email (I usually prefer email for situations like this). If that isn't fruitful, AN would be the next stop. SQL Query me!  18:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Email isn't possible for me at the moment, unfortunately. User talk is more public than I'd prefer, but it may be my only option. Killer Chihuahua 18:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of ANI is to report specific incidents that require immediate action from administrators. The instructions at the top of the page say that this board is not for matters requiring privacy. What action do you expect administrators to take when we do not know any of the details? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cullen, this is two issues in one thread - a trend and a specific admin. While I would prefer not to drag the other admin, as that's often counter-productive, I am seeking input on how to approach the issue. If you object due to your characterization of "this might be better handled discreetly" as the same as "this is a privacy issue" all I can tell you is that this is not that kind of "privacy issue". Killer Chihuahua 19:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of ANI is to report specific incidents that require immediate action from administrators. Actually, the top of the page says "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". This seems like the latter. – Levivich 19:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Levivich, thank you. Killer Chihuahua 19:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is moot since we now know which administrator you were talking about, but whether it is an one time incident or a pattern of behavior, I believe that this noticeboard is for specific cases, not generalized concerns. And if you want discreet discussion, ANI is not the place for that. Just my opinion. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  22:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And again you demonstrate you have no idea why I'm here or what I"m talking about. Yes, we now know that specific admin, but that was only 1/2 the question at hand - and significantly less than half of the problem as a whole! Please feel free to tell me yet again something inapplicable, or lecture me regarding why I'm here, getting it absolutely wrong again!  - frustrated puppy. Killer Chihuahua  23:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , The only private way is probably going to be email, unless the admin in question lists some other alternate contact method (e.g. irc/skype/discord/slack/google chat/ham frequency/smoke signals). It may be worth it to get a disposable email address and enable it in mediawiki long enough to have a conversation. SQL Query me!  19:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Disposable email is a good idea, thanks. Killer Chihuahua 19:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This all seems just a bit cloak-and-dagger. Why not meet in the third pew on St. Swithin’s Day? EEng 22:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the IP you are referring to hadn't completely self-reverted. They left the article in this state, and reverted the remaining vandalism. I would endorse the school block / anon block in that situation, given that IP's contribution history. ST47 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that specific case you are quite correct, thank you for pointing that out. I chose a poor example for my entry here, it seems. Killer Chihuahua 19:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've noticed this trend too, and if I recall correctly, another admin complained about it on WP:AN a couple weeks ago. It's disheartening, and I'm seriously considering just removing declined reports whenever I see them to stop trigger-happy admins from just blocking the list of reported people. Additionally, the number of rangeblocks that admins throw out is getting ridiculous. Rangeblocks are generally intended to be used only in response to severe, persistent disruption by IP-hopping abusers. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Rangeblocks aren't my thing, so I haven't been examining them, but I have noticed an increase in them. Killer Chihuahua 19:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * thanks for everyone's input. I'm going to spend some time going over history, building a list of incidents, which will both help me get a handle on how much this is happening, and whether I've missed anything (as I did above!) and give me necessary data should I approach anyone directly about this. If I do, I'll probably take SQL's kind suggestion and create a disposable email. Otherwise, I'll be back here - and the difs I collect will at that time be posted here. Again, thank you all for your input. Killer Chihuahua 19:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When it comes to AIV, I hope I know what I don't know, but it's possible I don't know what I don't know. With that Rumsfeldian preface, it seems like we lack agreement among the CV crowd about how to handle such situations. Some admin and vandal fighters take a more aggressive stance towards blocking disruption. Other admin and vandal fighters feel that this stance is exceeding policy in their application. Coming to ANI or, as was also recently done, AN to open a broader discussion has some value. I'm certainly aware of the issue in a way I wasn't 3 weeks ago. I don't think one of these groups starting to warn and template the other is the way to towards consensus. An RfC frequently offers a way towards a bigger discussion but I don't what the RfC would look at. I do think someone being able to put forth a structured discussion, someone who knows more than me, could help to get a sense but within our counter-vandal community and among the community as a whole how we would like to deal with these. Maybe the answer is "well enforcement is going to be uneven" which might be frustrating to both sides but would also tell them to stop going at each other. Or maybe the answer is that the consensus does favor one kind of approach of others, or one kind of approach in certain situations but the other approach in different situations. But more AN/ANI threads or emails or talk page messages or (as I've seen) edit summaries to each other is not going to do anything but make a whole bunch of dedicated and necessary editors upset. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WT:AIV may be an appropriate place to start a broad discussion about how AIV reports are handled. Data–like how many or what percentage of denied reports nevertheless result in blocks (without new, blockable offenses committed in the interim), how many such blocks are IPs vs. registered, or single IP vs. range–might help editors understand the size/scope/nature of the problem. Aggregate data will help impersonalize the discussion as well. The result of the discussion might be an RfC to amend blocking or vandalism policy, or just an adjustment in norms among patrolling admin, or the confirmation that everything is fine the way it is. – Levivich 20:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It will likely take me several days to compile enough data to be useful; I can decide then whether to open a discussion regarding it there. Killer Chihuahua 20:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Unless more people want to insult "ridiculous" "trigger happy admins", this can be closed for now, yes? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said. Admins need to stop and think for a minute before handing out blocks left, right, and center, particularly if another admin already declined to block. Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned and the new way is better...I don't claim to know everything. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I missed anyone using either of those terms, or insulting anyone, Floque - perhaps you're reading something into this thread that isn't here? Killer Chihuahua 20:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ctrl-F "trigger-happy". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I looked for the term you originally posted, without the hyphen. Killer Chihuahua 20:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And you can't Ctrl-F "ridiculous" because that gets thrown around so often on ANI that you'd have to wade through about 10 other threads to get to this one. It's like searching for "the". But it's here too, in the same post. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Look, right this very second, we have this on AIV:
 * – On Castillo San Felipe del Morro : vandalism after final warning. Marghilos (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Killer Chihuahua 20:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost every single edit by this user has been vandalism. On several occasions edits were reverted and then re-added by the user. User edited Hello Neighbor so much that page edits are now subject to review. James Gordon (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, those were handled by me and RE. I've been responding here (and involved in a couple of other things) so I haven't started digging through the history, but I would bet dollars to donuts that there are similar reports which resulted in blocks, and sometimes extensive blocks, in the past. These two haven't been blocked after declining, but that also has occurred. Now whether you object to some of the terminology or not, there is an issue here - and it's either that blocking policy has changed, or that some admins aren't being careful to follow blocking policy. We don't block IPs for edits made months ago. We don't usually (or at least we used to not) block anyone after another editor declined, without at least a courtesy note on their talk page. I'm concerned. Killer Chihuahua 20:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would block the first one right now if I didn't know it would cause a ruckus because you already declined it. Very likely the same person ignoring previous warnings, and in any case nothing useful has come from that IP address in 2 years; it's all vandalism.  If I see something like that in the future and someone hasn't declined, I'll likely block them.  Otherwise we give them a "free" whack every 5 days, ad infinitum.  The second one is stale, I agree, but the report was made by a relatively new editor in good faith, no admin has disagreed with the decline, and you're still using it as proof that something is wrong with AIV? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you'd block the first one, then that's a difference in opinion in how to handle blocking policy, and yes that discussion needs to be held. Regarding "proof" - why no, I said clearly that people have blocked for such stale reports, and that is a problem. I don't know why you're so pissed off at me about this. No one is attacking you, Floque. Killer Chihuahua 21:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'd probably consider IAR blocking the second IP too. The same person has been vandalizing the same article for 3 years, so it's obviously static, and nothing useful has come from that IP address ever. No one is attacking me? I suppose "trigger-happy admin" wasn't specifically directed at me by name, but it's directed at people who are doing what I sometimes do.  There's a difference between disagreeing and "being pissed off at you"; but I'll admit to being annoyed at the general trend in this thread and those like it.  It's annoying when people who have a different opinion on how best to protect the encyclopedia from vandalism automatically assume that their approach is right, and everyone else's approach is ridiculous, and even more annoying when I'm not supposed to get annoyed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the fact that opinions are so divided shows this thread (and possibly a more formal approach, such as an Rfc) was absolutely necessary. What is our consensus? We haven't any, clearly. When do we block? Do we block even if another admin has declined? If we do override another admin's declining, is that appropriate? Should we inform the other admin? Should we discuss with the other admin prior to blocking? This is, as I've said before, a problem - and the mere fact that we're seeing such disagreement in this thread shows that clearly. I won't insult you by telling you how to handle your difference of opinion with anyone, but please don't throw the baby out with the bath water!
 * Regarding this specific case, just because one IP has not had productive edits yet does not mean it is static, or that it is the same person. IMO IPs require recent vandalism and warnings prior to blocking. Have you read Mindspillage's thoughts on this? I can't say I agree with her completely, but the general approach is what I support - and I think it's more in line with the "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" ideal goal. Killer Chihuahua 23:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Just saw this threat. I have been bothered by a similar observation; it was one of the reasons I began spending less time at AIV and more on other admin tasks. I've seen users (IPs or otherwise) make problematic but good faith edits, be slapped with a standard vandalism template, and then reported to AIV when they (obviously) didn't quite understand what was going on; and then, on at least a few occasions, seen them be blocked while I was writing out a warning/explanation on their talk page. Now statistically speaking, it may make sense to just block every such user; statistically speaking it might make sense to block every user reported to AIV without checking what their edits were. But that goes contrary to policy, and contrary to our philosophy about being open to editing. A little more thought going into each AIV response would be very helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This to my mind is the worst aspect of the trend I'm seeing with some admins' approach. BITE and AGF and so on are thrown right out the window! Block first and ask questions never. Every test edit, every well intentioned but unsourced or innocently POV edit is slapped down and the editor is banished with no attempt to examine the specifics. It's a notch-on-the-vandal-fighter's-belt approach for some, I think, and it's harmful to the encyclopedia. We're bleeding editors and admins, losing far more than we gain - and we're not trying to determine if some newbies can be taught and learn to become valued contributors. I'm not speaking of BVs, of course. But yes, many are apparently good-faith editors who just don't understand the rules. Killer Chihuahua  23:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User Bigtiff20 and their relentless addition of unsourced content
This user appears to completely disregard warnings and a previous block for the very reason I'm here today. I'd be most grateful if an admin could cast an eye on their edits which consist mostly of unsourced genre changes. Examples of which can be seen here, here, here, here and here.  Rob van  vee  19:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have indeed "cast an eye" and was not impressed by what I saw. That's a lot of talk page messages and zero response from the editor. Blocked. ST47 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

IP adding links to non-existent Wiki-quote pages
keeps adding links like this to empty Wikiquote search results, like this. I've asked them to stop but they've ignored me. Will notify user. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is disruptive. I'm going to leave a custom message and give the IP user an equivalent of a level 3 ("please stop") warning regarding the addition of the template where the entry does not exist on Wikiquote. If this continues after this warnings is left, I'd support a temporary block to prevent further disruptive edits like this to articles.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   08:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This person has been blocked repeatedly going back years. This is a different ISP than usual, but the geolocation is basically the same as Special:Contributions/2601:81:c401:5307::/64 and Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS>. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate - Ohhh, I see... This information is definitely relevant. Given the links you provided, I'll say that the block you placed was definitely necessary. Thanks for letting me know about this. Should I perhaps amend the addition of to articles by new accounts and IP address users to the edit filter I created and maintain (#51)?  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   08:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On second thought, adding this condition might result in a bunch of false positive hits, since  (what I use as a condition to check the edit count of accounts) only returns an integer for accounts; it's null for IP address users... Yeah, nevermind - disregard my question... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   08:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This behavior goes back a long time (edit warring at Thomas articles and adding useless wikiquote templates to cartoons), but it's never been this bad before. So, it's not really a big deal, anyway.  To be honest, I think today's disruption might just be an aberration.  This is a disruptive editor, no doubt, but probably not to the level where you'd want to cause problems mitigating the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks and .  Re today being an aberration, the IP made a bunch of the same sort of edits on 12 September. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat
AutismMomof2 claims to be Catharine Layton and says if certain information isn't removed from Informed Consent Action Network she will contact her lawyer. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * lwarned. El_C 15:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, crossed paths, but, regardless, the user should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes my talk page efforts pathetic! Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The uw-nlt warning exists for a reason — so the user making the threats could retract. El_C 15:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the warning is more correctly used by non-admins because they don't have the power to block. If not, how do we decide when to warn and when to block? Most legal threats are met with a block in my experience. And the blocked user can retract and be unblocked. If we warn, how long do we wait for the retraction? One hour? One day? For me, I either block because it's a clear threat, which this one was, or I don't block. Obviously, some admins will disagree. I know some admins (not you) who hate blocking anyone for anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have waited no more than 24 hours. But perhaps I'm being too lenient. El_C 15:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal threats by new editor

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

Hello all, it looks like has been adding legal and arrest threats to multiple user talk pages (see, , and ). I did place a warning on their talk page but they have continued. --   LuK3      (Talk)   13:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just an addendum, I did use Google Translate to get a rough idea of what their edits mean in English. --   LuK3      (Talk)   13:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account. Their posts seem to state that they represent the 'Ministry of Public Security' and is monitoring the activities of the users they contact and will arrest them for joining Wikipedia.  The language is Vietnamese. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Account has now been indef-blocked also on Commons for the same reason. Global lock should be be considered. --Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Betty Logan
Betty Logan has shown ignorance in the below talk section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best#/talk/6

It clearly shows that Betty Logan has ignoring fact and reverses his words on occasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokkumar47 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Vanity / self-promotional account.
is only here to promote himself with vanity pages: Paras gola, User:Parasgola, Parasgola and User:Parasgola/sandbox. The fact that they change the spelling and/or the namespace of their spam each time suggests they know perfectly well that it is unwanted. WP:NOTHERE and wasting everyone's time. Cheers, ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ian.thomson (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It must be the future: "Justice is very quick now they've abolished all the lawyers" :) many thanks . If you or anyone would care to close this.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Apology from User:Drmies please
At Talk:Squatting_position, User:Drmies said the following "Penbat--did you really add the WikiProject Medicine tag to this?". It is clearly untrue. If User:Drmies had bothered to check the talk page history he would have known this. It seemed to be an attempted smear. So I would like an apology.--Penbat (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Dinotrux Article has same false/uncited information being repeatedly added by anonymous users
As I have stated on the Dinotrux Talk page, multiple random IP addresses continue adding uncited/unreferenced information about an upcoming season. I and several others have attempted to both add 'citation needed' tags, as well as start a discussion, but the citation-needed tags are either outright removed, or just ignored. I was going to submit to the 3-revert rule administration page, but since it is from multiple (possible sock puppet) anonymous addresses, I thought this would be the best first course of action. -- Ishmayl (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR is measured over a 24-hour period. This case seems like not enough activity for a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2602:306:BCAE:4750::/64, as there are other good edits from that range. I will semi-protect for a month, and if the issue continues after the protection, you could report to WP:RFPP or WP:AIV. ST47 (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Accounts and IP addresses evading block of Martimc123
Can someone stop the ongoing, blatant block evasion of ? as been "blocked as a clear sock per WP:DUCK", but now the user has continued editing Portugal national football team without an account (see history page). It all started with the addition of copyrighted photos of João Félix to João Félix on 4 July 2019 by (sock of Martimc123) – first copyright violation by the sock. Then, appeared (another sock). I have listed all socks at Talk:João Félix. After more and more disrupting behavior by the sock, I reported it at Sockpuppet_investigations/Martimc123/Archive, but nothing was done. Please do something about this mess both on Wikipedia and Commons. SLBedit (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Every account you have linked to here is already blocked. What unblocked, still active accounts do you believe are sockpuppets, and provide diffs as evidence. ST47 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And on second thought, please do that at WP:SPI. Your previous case was archived because of lack of diffs comparing edits made by your suspected socks to similar edits made by previous socks. So if that evidence exists, please report it at SPI. ST47 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion disrupted by Meatpuppetry
It started with editors attempt to organize response against merger, with one editor alerting another editor to "take an eye onto discussion" at User_talk:Peacemaker67#Turkish_Croatia, former quite assertive and demanding in "discussion"; then this later editor alerting third editor, emphatically asking third editor if they can send them (second) an email.
 * (destination for proposed merger and its TP is place for merger discussion)
 * (problematic page, protected three times in last two months)

This exchange predictably resulted with involved antagonistic editors resorting to requesting assistance of like-minded people and campaigning outside English Wikipedia, namely by placing couple of inciting request at Croatian Wikipedia - two evident are instances of this behavior HERE and HERE (we can only presume what was going on beyond these pages (WP:STEALTH)) - to which few responded in attempt to give boost to their (systemic) biased POV by means of "voting" on the merger. Another dedicated (and up until that moment uninvolved) editor, myself included, tried to get their attention on this behavior, but we were dismissed with comments of explanations and justifications. And, not only that they voted more then once(!) each, they also, apparently, using WP:Single-purpose accounts as well. Obstructed discussion at: Talk:Bosanska_Krajina. As an aside, I would also like to examine the possibility of extending the page protection (current pg. protection expires in couple of hours), at least until the ensuing merger discussion and disruption of it has been resolved.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  03:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Dum felis dormit, mus gaudet et exsi litantro.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * It actually all started with editor who disrupted a long-time more or less stable content   of the article „Turkish Croatia“, and who began edit warring. Later he alerted admins  and one of them protected the page, but with problematic content, and opened merger discussion. By the way, the page was protected only once, not „three times in last two months“. Some other editors (among which were also those who previously took part on the talk page of the article) reacted to behaviour of the disruptive editor and opposed the merger, giving reasons for that, including facts, sources, references.
 * During the merger discussion, there was no one who clearly supported the merger, but only made comments. Perhaps because there are a lot of sources that prove the notability of the article, as standalone one. Most of sources were systematically ignored and removed from the article by disruptive editor. He added his POV sources instead, which have almost nothing to do with the original content. And, as for my „double“ voting, I clearly stated that I confirmed my previous discussion on talk pages „before the merger discussion had been officially opened“.
 * Instead of contributing constructively to the article dealing with distant past, this editor uses the article as some sort of political pamphlet, and uses words like neologism, hapax, claptrap, pseudo-history, Austrian-Hungarian conspiracy theory etc. to describe the term and original content of the article. Could anybody explain how, for instance, an at least 300 or 400 years old term (Turkish Croatia) can be neologism, or how the term with a lot of various sources in English, German, Italian and Croatian language can be hapax?
 * The most important things to be stressed here are:

When you accuse somebody, you should translate his words thoroughly and correctly. My words were just a reaction to User:Santassa99's actions, as you can (once more) see here, because you apparently neglect to mention it. Has this user more rights than me or other users to alert admins and his „like-minded crowd” (these are his words, not mine)? Isn't it canvassing? And how do you explain this ? Three minutes after you reverted the page Turkish Croatia, an admin protected it. How do you call that? Coincidence or …? Think about it, before you „cast the first stone“. And one more question: Have you read the original text of the article carefully? Are you familiar with history and historiography? You speak German and some sources there are in German. Could you tell whether they are false or „canvassed“? That's the point, and not whether „Franjo Tuđman established the Republic of Croatia“. Or who meant “to denigrate and devalue Bosnia and Herzegovina sovereignty and statehood”. In that article or with that article nobody meant to denigrate and devalue Bosnia and Herzegovina sovereignty and statehood, for sure. The current, protected (but problematic) content is not the point of the article, but it should be put in another place, in another article, probably dealing with modern-day relations between countries of southeastern Europe or so. Unfortunately, some people don’t see what it is written, but just who wrote it or where he is from. Embarrassing. Fortunately, they are a small minority. Majority sees what it is really written, no matter who wrote it. And, perhaps Croatian Wikipedia isn't unbiased place, but there are users of the Croatian Wikipedia who apparently feel displeasure with improper behaviour of some users/admins of the English Wikipedia towards them, showing Anti-Croat sentiment. As for „personal attacks“ you've mentioned, could you please specify them? -- Silve  rije  22:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC) You allege conspiracy, but I was not in communication with the admin who protected the page, and was not the one who requested protection. The only reason I reverted was because the version I reverted subtly promoted Croatian nationalism and irredentism, and it also removed the issue templates before the merger discussion had concluded. The hrwiki users you refer to call everyone who disagrees with them "anti-Croatian" (an example of a personal attack) but this simply isn't true. Because Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, nobody here (especially not the admins!) is actively being "anti-Croatian." The existence of the "Turkish Croatia" article and whether it should or should not be merged is not a national issue, but an issue of content overlap (two names for the same region or not?). History does not necessarily exclusively belong to one nation (meaning it can be shared between nations) so if the article does end up being merged, that does not mean the Croatian people lose "ownership" of the history by any means. Thus, the merger discussion is not an attack on the Croatian people! The sources you mention are not necessarily "false" but they aren't really relevant to the question of whether to merge, unless you find one that clearly states, "Turkish Croatia is different from Bosanska Krajina." Arguing over the content of the disputed article here gets us nowhere, and only causes aggravation for both of us. If you really have issues with the behavior of certain editors, the best way to resolve the issue is to have a civil discussion with said editors, describing, point by point, the issues you have with the existing article, while also listening to what they have to say, instead of being argumentative, which leads to a situation where both sides are constantly stonewalling using the same arguments again and again. We can continue this discussion somewhere else if you wish, but discussing it here won't change anything. DraconicDark (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is a significant integral part of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian history, but the Croatian history as well.
 * 2) The article deals with distant past and not with recent history, e.g. Bosnian War or Croatian War of Independence in the 1990s.
 * 3) The article refers to the territory which does not overlap with the area of Bosanska Krajina, neither geographically nor chronologically.
 * 4) The original content of the article has a lot of references from independent and reliable sources.
 * -- Silve  rije 22:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs don't make a right. The only reason so many people left oppose votes was because you canvassed them to do so, something you neglect to mention while engaging in personal attacks. Perhaps if you had just left your oppose vote and left the discussion to proceed naturally, you would have had a stronger case for your accusations. You allege bias, but Croatian Wikipedia isn't exactly the most unbiased place, far from it in fact... DraconicDark (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are „two wrongs“ – that is the question.
 * What I meant by "Two wrongs don't make a right" was that, if you believed Santasa99's actions were wrong, the right course of action was not to respond by breaking one of English Wikipedia's rules. Santasa99 was not canvassing in the examples you showed, but rather, discussing with people who had already been involved. Even if actual canvassing occurred, that would not mean you were allowed to do the same thing. What made your action canvassing was the fact that you brought in people who weren't already involved who you knew would vote the same way as you. "Canvassing" is a term that only refers to votes.

 * Comment -, conspiracy remarks and kind of vitriol directed at DraconicDark (and myself) amount to casting WP:ASPERSIONS per WP:ARBMAC. You are aware of this ARB existence, but you are unwilling to read it, or you don't understand it, or you are simply disregarding it. You need to moderate your tone.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree with you. It won't change anything. We can't understand each other. From everything I say, you take only the words that suit you and interpret these according to you point of view. -- Silve  rije  15:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans
See archived link at wp:ANI:

Unintelligible personal attack & Vandalism by impersonation. Gundam5447 (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked. I've also semi-protected your talk page for a week.  Unfortunately, I'm familiar with Malaysian ISPs.  They're a pain.  This block won't accomplish much, so report the IP editor whenever the disruption starts up again.  You could probably use WP:AIV for faster service. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, here's a message I started to compose to (but didn't send) a while ago when I saw this person (or people) pop up again with their "cibai" insults and "IPv6 shouldn't edit" nonsense:

Hi. In July, you were involved with this ongoing problem with a Malay IP making PAs against Singaporean IP editors and being otherwise disruptive. The problem continues. Earlier mentions include this, this, this, and this. Trying to narrow it down from the wide: that was previously blocked, I got the following /40s: I've not looked closely at collateral yet, but this is where the "cibai" insults came from. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 11:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I confirmed the destruction again. Gundam5447 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Impersonation has been resumed. Please block again. Gundam5447 (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User: SchroCat
SchroCat seems to be intentionally ignoring the fact in the talk section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_best?markasread=172674696&markasreadwiki=enwiki#/talk/6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokkumar47 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what your complaint is. However, you seem upset that some editors don't want to include Rotten Tomatoes scores at Talk:List of films considered the best.  If you've tried to discuss the issue with them, and they still don't agree with you, the next step would be a request for comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

is someone who does not seem to either understand how things work (absolutely no problem with that) or in listening to others or in dealing with others (and there is an increasing problem with those). It relates to the thread Talk:List of films considered the best. When Ashokkumar47 did not get buy in to include something on the page, he began to be aggressive to "Couldn't even understand simple logic", and opened a thread here titled "Betty Logan Ignorance". (Making this thread the second out-of-process, disruptive use of this noticeboard). Ashokkumar47 has attempted to WP:CANVASS support from others to take his side here, here, here, here and here. Ashokkumar47 has also asked for "Expert help" here, here, here, here and here. Any advice given to them, or factual-based arguments against their position are not listened to, and the same point has been repeated several times, despite there being no consensus for change. In the last of these Ashokkumar47 also made more aspersions abut me ("SchroCat doesn't really seem to care about it there"), despite being told not to comment on contributors when he made the same misplaced accusation against me here ("SchroCat with what you have said earlier in this conversation, it clearly shows that you don't care about this and it's a waste of time"). Their approach on the Film list talk page (and elsewhere) is increasingly disruptive (aspersions, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, canvassing, etc). - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I think there's a competency issue here, concerning Ashokkumar47. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As User:SchroCat has said, this is the second time in 24 hours that User:Ashokkumar47 has been here to report what should be a content issues about a list of films. The only conduct issue that I see is the reports here.  There are competency issues, including that Ashkokkumar47 didn't know what pronoun to use for User:Betty Logan.  A warning, a topic-ban on reports here, a topic-ban on lists of films, or a competency block are among the options.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I appreciate that the discussion is closed. But why were those images placed in the discussion? They don't do anything for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed. Black Kite (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Restored. Read the history. Added long before the discussion was closed, though one editor repeatedly attempted to edit-war them out. As mentioned in earlier edit summaries, "It's a visual pun on something in the discussion -- look around if need be. Groanworthy humor is a well established way to relieve the dismal ennui of ANI for those who suffer there, even if not all are able to appreciate it. Certainly contributions are not limited by the most restrictive taste found among all observers". In addition, see WP:TPO: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection, and I object. Thanks for not trying to impose your ideas of helpfulness on everyone else. EEng 17:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * This is getting frustrating now. Again those images have been restored in a discussion I was a part of. PLEASE, may they be removed & NOT restored? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is it frustrating to you? Because you are unable to control others' posts, including those you don't understand? Did you read what I said above? EEng 17:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They don't add anything to the discussion. They appear to be calling somebody an asshole. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Try harder. There's even a link in one of the image captions to help you. Hint: -F the string abut. EEng 17:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, so yet again you are mocking me for a misspelling, not long after I told you I have mild dyslexia? FFS... Are you really that low? - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "one editor repeatedly attempted to edit-war them out". Sadly the truth is missing relative to this. One editor removed them, you edit warred tham back in before another user altogether removed them. You weren't part of the thread, made no useful contributions to it, and there is no reason to drop in your infantile images. Perhaps take on board that when several people have either removed the images or asked they not be put back there, it would be best to leave them out and stop acting like a File:Südafr.-21.4-12.5.06-1781.jpg? - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)Agreed - they appear to me mocking the user name of the original poster. Just another example of what a kind and welcoming place Wikipedia can be.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So EEng is harassing Schrocat rather than the OP - that doesn't make it any better. Here's a hint - if no-one but you gets the joke - it isn't funny.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus, it's really a trial trying to raise the level of discussion on this page. Here's what some self-appointed enforcers of public morality have got their hair on fire about:
 * This follows on to one of my greatest hits by folding in a typo in the current thread (search abut). Now to be honest, I regret not noticing at first that the typo was SchroCat's – cross my hearth and hope to die. But even had I noticed, in my mixed up inventory of my fellow editors' diagnoses, I misremembered it as Cassianto having the dyslexia  so I'm not sure it would have made any difference. Blame it on my slight pre-senile dementia. But as everyone knows, I take 'em where I find 'em, showing no man prejudice nor favor – not even myself, see right –  so how about letting a pun be a pun regardless of its origin, whether it tickles your funnybone or not, without all the huffing and puffing and defensiveness? Jesus, lighten up. EEng 18:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Without trying to take a side here, just a note that while the jokes might often make ANI a better place for some of the ANI regulars (and maybe some others -- I've seen it defended on multiple occasions, after all), when people who are actually involved in a thread (rather than just hanging out on a noticeboard) say it's not helpful, and when it doesn't actually add anything other than the joke itself, and when it's removed by multiple people multiple times.... maybe don't violate 3RR to add it a fourth time? — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

EEng blocked
I have blocked EEng for 24 hours for having violated 3RR. I, personally, like EEng's images, but edit warring over them was the wrong call. El_C 18:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure some editors enjoy the humor, but there are some that are getting tired of it as well. I'd also note the borderline PA in the edit summary here.  Mocking someone with a disability should not be something we turn a blind eye to. — Ched (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree (or mocking anyone actually). Paul August ☎ 19:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see what you did there. ―cobaltcigs 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * A well deserved block. I'm so sick and tired of their images here that I more than once have been tempted to propose an "EEng-filter" for the noticeboards, a filter that when enabled would automagically hide all images added by EEng. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * About time.  Cassianto Talk  19:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on the images however I will say the mocking needs to stop, It's one thing taking the piss outta someone for a typo but it's another to A) do it repeatedly and B) do it knowing that person has a disability reading, writing and spelling problem. It needs to stop. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Should have been longer. For some reason EEng has really been after a few editors here and some very uncivil things have been said. I thought we were supposed to be cutting down on that. Additionally no editor should be mocked for a disability. That is shameful. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd give a couple more hours to that block for the disability comment, if I were an admin. –Ανδρέας Symbol question.svg talk|contributions 20:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Admins chose to ignore it the first time, so what's new now?  Cassianto Talk  20:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * EEng is one of my best wiki-friends, and I often enjoy having humorous conversations with him. But – I want to say something to EEng, and I'm going to say it here, not at his talk page. Please just stop putting "humorous" stuff on ANI. If you have useful information or advice to provide (in text), by all means, but as for the "humor", please stop, entirely. It's not true that ANI needs to have the mood lightened. ANI needs to resolve stuff and move on, with as little distraction as possible. (Several months ago, I posted what I thought was a humorous image here, and it turned out to be one of the dumbest things that I have done on Wikipedia, and I've regretted it ever since.) You said recently that you would not joke at RfA. Well, the same goes for here. And a little while back I commented that during disputes the first thing an admin should do is to consider whether an action will escalate or deescalate a situation, and you strongly endorsed what I said. That goes for non-admins, too. You may think something is funny, but others will not, and all that happens is the situation gets sidelined and escalates. It's stopped being funny. So please cut it out, for good. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken EEng with a grain of salt for the past couple of months. So... what's all of this complaining about the images that EEng posted? I don't see a problem with the humorous images, unlike some that seemingly want to remove humor from this encyclopedia. However, I must digress somewhere. The comment that most are unanimously opposing above was one full of ignorant humor, and is seemingly not the first uncivil comment that EEng is posted. Considering all of this, EEng has been blocked for...one day? What? | abequinnfourteen 20:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If some editor writes something I think is really stupid—like, say, referring to "mild dyslexia" as a "disability" (please), I don’t get to just delete it because I think it’s stupid. So why are pictures any different? Just scroll past the picture that offends you so. I promise you’ll be ok. – Levivich 21:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not said that my mild dyslexia is a disability (I've never thought of it that way, and I have enough workarounds for most of the time). But Eeng had nothing useful to add to the original thread, just some images with a dig at me for the second time in a week. Yes, is could have ignored it, but there's no reason to ignore it, and even less reason for him to add images on a thread he wasn't involved in or wasn't being constructive in. Next time someone abuses you for some reason, don't bother complaining or coming here with a report: just scroll past the bit that offends you so. I promise you’ll be ok. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Levivich - I agree and I was wrong to label it as such however at the time of writing I was going to put "do it knowing that person has an issue" .... which sounds more insulting than anything .... I've since amended it to "do it knowing that person has a reading, spelling and writing problem", I hope this makes my comment less stupid for you. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (September 2019)
User:STSC is continuing to make POV edits regarding contentious China-related issues. This was raised in 2015 by User:Feminist in the aftermath of the 2014 Hong Kong protests, and has come up sporadically since then.

The latest batch of questionable edits surround the ongoing 2019 Hong Kong protests. Here are some examples:

 * Implying that police violence only took place against “violent” protesters (12 September). This is not reflected by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Innocent bystanders, peaceful protesters, and even press and medics have been injured by police tear gas and rubber bullets.

 * Writing that a general strike held by protesters “failed” (12 September), a claim that is also not reflected by any reliable secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources reported that the strike snarled traffic routes, and was both "massive" and "unprecedented". To write that the strike "failed" or was "not so successful" is pure POV; a view that has not been published by any reliable secondary source.

 * Referring to the protests as “riots”. In Hong Kong, the term “riot” has hefty legal ramifications. Given the fluid and most often non-violent nature of the movement, reliable sources have not broadly characterised the protests as “rioting”.
 * 15 August
 * 8 September – the cited sources do not use the term riot in relation to the Sheung Wan protests, as the edit summary falsely suggests

 * Changing Tiananmen Square “massacre” to “protest”, even though the legislative motion in question specifically applied to the June 4 massacre, not the 1989 protests as a whole (9 September, 10 September)

 * Denying that “protesters” are citizens, or falsely suggesting that crowdfunded newspaper ads were not funded by “citizens”, but exclusively by “protesters”, which is a claim not reflected in any of the cited sources (8 September, 12 September). Meanwhile, STSC portrays pro-Beijing protesters as "ordinary Hong Kong residents" (12 September). The difference in how the two groups are characterised is suggestive of bias.

 * Using misleading edit summaries to blank content without explanation (9 September, 12 September)

 * Removing mention of Hong Kongers’ self-identity as Hong Kongers (i.e. as opposed to Chinese)

 * Blanking “potentially libellous” content from the article for Junius Ho, a pro-Beijing legislator (2 August, 6 August, 21 August, 10 September, 10 September). In order for something to be libel, it must be false. However, the “potentially libellous” content in the article is all well-sourced to reliable secondary sources.

Considered altogether, these diffs are additional evidence that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a particular political agenda. Citobun (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment Out of all these diffs, the only one that rises to the level of a behavioural issue as opposed to a content dispute is this. Several of these look, honestly, like improvements from the perspective of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I'd suggest, at most, that STSC be cautioned not to use misleading edit summaries. But to claim WP:NOTHERE no. That's overreach. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (For instance, STSC's argument that a small-sample survey from a potentially biased source isn't WP:DUE seems quite solid.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that the extent to which respondent's sentiment to being considered Chinese changed was documented at less than the margin of error for the survey. As a result, it's questionable the extent to which Wikipedia should be making interpretive statements of the raw data per WP:SYNTH notwithstanding the issue of the small sample size and risk of bias in sample selection, which is a bit of a black box here. We know they conducted phone interviews with a live interviewer but there's no information about the interview script, or number selection. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For additional grounds why this particular edit on STSC's part was actually probably a net good for the project see also WP:PRIMARY as the removed source is, in fact, a primary source. I use this as an example of why it's for the best not to initiate AN/I complaints to settle content disputes. However I should note that STSC did not deny that the protesters were citizens. STSC clarified that the citizens blocking traffic were protesters. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (Oops, hit publish too fast) I mention that one in specific because there are some complaints on this list that fail verification in similar ways. I'd suggest that the 's POV may be colouring their perspective on STSC's edits. I do not think a boomerang is at all necessary here, but I would suggest that this complaint be closed promptly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 * You can find elements of some questionable edits that are constructive in some way. Others are purely blatant POV-pushing. Regarding the Ho example, potentially controversial content on that page is well-sourced. His polemic makes him one of the most notorious politicians in Hong Kong. It isn't "potentially libelous" to write about these incidents as long as it is all well-sourced. Citobun (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment Simonm223 seems to have hit it on the head. I concur in general that, for example, "Tienanmen Square Massacre" is the appropriate verbiage to be used. While the protest indeed spanned a longer timeframe, he appears to be expressing support for those killed in the crackdown/massacre. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment by STSC - Just recently user Citobun has been blocked for harassment but he/she still does not want to give up his/her hate campaigns against other editors in content disputes. STSC (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is in fact part of a pattern behavior wherein Citobun has targeted STSC it might be appropriate to reconsider whether a boomerang was appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was told by an admin (User:NinjaRobotPirate) that I need to provide more substantiation to claims that STSC is engaging in unconstructive POV-pushing. I have therefore provided ample evidence above. Please read the policy at No personal attacks. This clearly does not constitute a personal attack – it's about content. On the other hand, STSC repeatedly accusing me of undertaking a "hate campaign" is indeed a personal attack. So is your baseless claim that my supposed POV is "colouring [my] perspective". I have barely ever edited the protest page. Citobun (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I had raised the concern on the article (or the set of article) for POV pushing and the emerge of a few SPA account. Experienced editor that synthesis source, that made up new thing from source is not that surprising to appear in the article. Just are there any admin dare to lock the article and allow editors to settle stuff on talk page first. Matthew hk (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of this specific complaint, and the long term interpersonal conflict it appears to be part of, I concur with Matthew hk that edit protection would be a good idea on these articles.  Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment and question about BLP violations I recently removed this defamatory/libelous statement from Talk:Joshua Wong (originally posted ,, went to look at the editor's talk and came here. I am actually quite surprised to see users allowed to use the talk page for posting rumours about living people and then discussing them like a forum? I thought the WP:BLP policy applies everywhere. What is Wikipedia's mechanism to address such issues?--DreamLinker (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, it seem a serious BLP violation by User:STSC (edit: the ip, i misread the talk page. 09:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)) regarding Joshua Wong. Unless the user genuine believe the fake news / misinformation on state-owned newspaper inside the Great Firewall of China. BTW, his father seem a highly educated professional, which at least South Horizons is an expensive private estate. To add my point, even they are Vietnamese-Chinese (i did know some personally), it is a serious OR and UNDUE accusation on linkage to their political spectrum . Tung Chee Wa was from Shanghai/Zhejiang, Bernard Charnwut Chan is a Thai-Chinese diaspora and so on. Carrie Lam and her family have/had British citizenship too, so do predecessor CY Leung . Matthew hk (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I dismissed that rumour as I could not find any reliable source to confirm it. Even if it was true, being a Vietnamese person does not mean he would be a bad guy in Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Your so called "dismissing of the rumour" was actually not a dismissing, but rather indulging in gossip and using the talk page like a forum to discuss unsubstantiated rumours. This is a serious BLP violation. We are not supposed to further discuss unsubstantiated claims (which is exactly what you did). I also wonder what do you mean in comments such as  where you say I agree. The "5 deaths (all suicides)" in the infobox does sound like they were suicide bombers for their "revolution". I don't know if you are doing this intentionally and trying to game the system by casting aspersions, but no English speaker would confuse "suicide" with "suicide bombing". I want to WP:AGF here, but your behaviour is somewhat close to what is described as Sealioning. I trust that you will take the advice and refrain from such behaviour.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) A user wanted to include a piece of information in the article, I replied there're no reliable sources to back it up. Am I not allowed to do that in talk page?
 * (2) A user expressed his/her concern about a piece of information maybe misleading in the article, I replied and exchanged my opinion on that issue. Am I not allowed to do that in talk page?
 * STSC (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I will describe what happened
 * (1) A user posted unsubstantiated libelous content on a talk page which was clearly a WP:BLP violation. Instead of removing, you engaged in discussing claiming "you've heard something similar". Then you added you don't don't have sources so cannot say it is true to false. We are supposed to remove unambiguous BLP violations, instead of commenting that "yes, I have heard something similar" and using the talk page like a forum
 * I would rather give the user a chance to reply and back up his/her claim in the talk page. STSC (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your second edit which I pointed out is an example of a borderline edit which (while not breaking any explicit Wikipedia policies), tends to either show a deliberate attempt at Sealioning or a non-understanding of English (though I find it hard to believe the latter). It makes it hard to assume good faith, that's all.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 * If you have any issue, why don't you discuss it in the article's talk page? Your problem is you don't even participate in that discussion about the deaths but tried very hard to make a meal out of nothing on here. STSC (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am commenting on your behaviour, not the content. This is the correct venue, not the article talk page.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You disagree to my opinion about "suicide" in the infobox, that's very much about the content. Just say my opinion is not to your liking. STSC (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said again, the issue is with your behaviour, your civil POV pushing.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all "POV pushing". I hardly engage in edit wars. I just make edits and corrections per WP:NPOV in a relaxing way. You and your friends do not seem to be able to accept in a real world there're people with different views from yours. STSC (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We also don't give let users post unsubstantiated libelous claims about living people, in the hope they maybe they will back it up someday. That's pretty much against BLP.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I dismissed the claim because I myself could not find any sources, not because I know Mr Wong personally. I don't believe it's true but I chose to let the user justify the claim if he/she can. STSC (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Letting someone justify a BLP violation is not OK. It is still a BLP violation. Anyway, I trust that you will understand.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, you may say it's a false claim but please don't use the term "libelous claim", you have insulted to all Vietnamese people. STSC (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying stuff like "please don't use the term "libelous claim", you have insulted to all Vietnamese people" is precisely the problem with you. This comment is definitely defamatory and libelous but you seem to not accept it. All I see here is a refusal on your part to even understand the basic fact that the comment was a BLP violation.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To say someone is Vietnamese is libelous and defamatory? You don't see that's insulting to Vietnamese people? STSC (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So you acknowledge that there is nothing defamatory or libelous in, correct?--DreamLinker (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You avoided my question. STSC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When you answer whether is libelous or defamatory, I will answer your question. Your answer is important because it indicates if you understand WP:BLP, which is actually quite relevant here, since we are discussing your conduct.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked you the question first but you avoided it. I take it you agree it's defamatory and libelous to say someone has Vietnamese descent. STSC (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, so not answering means saying yes. Wow.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I consider this comment to be libelous/defamatory statement and a BLP violation, since you are so insistent.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, this seems like over-reach based on the diff presented. STSC acknowledged they'd heard the rumour, said there were not reliable sources and that it shouldn't be included. That's precisely how one should respond to a BLP question like that.Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but posting random unsubstantiated rumours is very obviously a BLP violation and should have been removed immediately, instead of acknowledging the rumour itself. I would find it extremely unsettling if editors are allowed to post such rumours and let it stay anywhere on Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your initial dif was somewhat misleading. This isolates STSC's comment separate from the IP who made the initial statement. It's quite evident when reviewing the correct dif that STSC was, in fact, stating there were no RSes supporting the assertion regarding the subject's background. This is patently ridiculous. Simonm223 (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are 2 issues. First, it is unclear if STSC even acknowledges that is a BLP violation. Second, instead of removing the comment, they decide to say "I have heard something similar...". We don't do that. The BLP policy is very clear that we do not allow BLP violations (particularly unsubstantiated ones) to remain on Wikipedia. I am actually quite surprised that you would think it is OK, given that this is the exact kind of behaviour which makes women and minorities stay away from Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * This was a few years ago, but it demonstrates that STSC has been pushing for a pro-Chinese government POV to an extreme degree, justifying the "elimination" of a religious group: Not every cult is harmful. Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China; such process should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society. That is quite shocking IMO, but that said, "detestable" views itself are not blockable. It should be assessed whether these pro-Beijing views were pushed in a disruptive way and how they communicated with others. --Pudeo (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to bring up here this old FG issue of 2015. Arbitration Committee had dealt with it long time ago. STSC (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Ok multiple issue here. For boomerang i don't think Citobun well communicate to other editor either. See his practice on oppose a merge in Talk:Shenzhen Bay Port (i mistook his was an admin or someone high enough to hide the log?) Also, the revert in City University of Hong Kong. Reaching CIR level? May be not, but just like at Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack, a bit ad hominem instead on based on the issues and for RM, the evidence.

 * For STSC on Wong's article. It is nothing really wrong as the misinformation did wide spread in Mainland China. Blanking the talk page thread my be the best practice, but believing the ip from Germany (an international [Chinese?] student at Germany? VPN? Intentionally attack the page due to Wong's visit at Germany recently? We don't know) in AGF and reply them, is reasonable.

 * For this edit Special:Diff/915348212. The source material was discussed in Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 12 ""Despite the territory's current political association with the mainland, most of the population self-identify as Hongkongers rather than Chinese.". Please really start a discussion on it before remove it, or just restore the original wording, also cut the reason due to synthesis. You can't due to the reason you don't like the source then say it is UNDUE and when you like it it is DUE. I would only say HKU POP is respectable source, widely reported by local media. The opinion poll did reflected in 2008 many citizens considered themselves Chinese, but there is a trend in recent year there is more people to choose Hongkongers. But it mean nothing as the opinion poll provided options HK-Chinese, China-Hongkonger, and it is a quantitative survey so that no one know the meaning of HK-Chinese and China-Hongkonger. Also, 1000 is a good number for statical purpose. HKU POP did even reported the standard error or something similar. Matthew hk (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, if you want to say every Western source is not reliable. Then i have nothing to say because The Economist also use the same HKU POP opinion poll as their source material in a reporting Are there bias in these opinion poll due to some people refuse to response? May be, but it is out of wiki editors to judge. Matthew hk (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Without digging into the wonkiness of methodological questions, which is (honestly) beyond our remit, it's simply put a violation of WP:SYNTH for us to be interpreting the results of this WP:PRIMARY source. If this is a respected survey, then I'm sure WP:SECONDARY sources can be found that will interpret the results. The language that I removed was clear WP:SYNTH and as such inappropriate. However, that's neither here nor there as STSC's edits are easily in the realm of a content dispute there. The edits regarding the survey certainly don't rise to the level of a behavioral issue regardless of how you feel about inclusion. I think you and I agree entirely that this entire AN/I issue is inappropriate for this forum based on the difs provided. DreamLinker's claim that STSC should be guilty for the sins of the IP because they didn't oppose the IP's edit request hard enough are patently absurd. Pudeo's mention of Falun Gong material from 2015 is deeply irrelevant to any current edit discussion except to establish that STSC is a person who holds opinions about things. And that is true of every editor on Wikipedia. And then there's Citobun's initial complaint, which I contend, based on it being part of a pattern of harassment against STSC as established in this dif, should probably pull a WP:BOOMERANG. I don't think there'd be any harm in cautioning STSC about avoiding misleading edit summaries, but considering the misleading use of difs and misleading commentary regarding edits that the complainants here have presented, STSC's comportment, as presented seems mild. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment by STSC: User Citobun pointed out 8 "questionable edits", has he discussed these edits in the articles' talk page? No. Has he tried other dispute resolutions? No. What he's actually doing here is using the ANI process to harass his opponent in content dispute. We can all see his so called "evidence" is as thin as paper but it doesn't matter for him because he's still got the satisfaction of having me harassed by way of this ANI. I've been stalked by this user Citobun since 2014, and he already has a failed ANI against me in 2016. He has been warned by admin EdJohnston and NinjaRobotPirate not to abuse other users but he continues his stalking and wanted to have another go at harassing me by ANI here. There must be a deterrent to prevent users like him from abusing the ANI process to harass other users. STSC (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I am not stalking nor harassing you. I have provided ample evidence of chronic POV-pushing despite multiple people raising concerns about this in the past. Yet you carry on as usual. As it pertains to a "chronic, intractable behavioral" issue, this discussion is best suited to take place at ANI. Citobun (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * You have been stalking me and harassing me for about 5 years. My God, I don't even know you. STSC (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Again, please refrain from making unsubstantiated personal attacks against me. Over the past five years I have made several complaints about your editing behaviour. But so have many others. Such complaints go back years before we ever crossed paths, and centre around the same issue at hand today – chronic POV-pushing on contentious China-related subjects such as Chinese territorial disputes, Hong Kong, and the Falun Gong (until you finally received a topic ban). Accusing me of "stalking" is just a bullying attempt at distracting the discussion here. You have been called out by many people over the past decade, and the common point of contention is your long-term POV editing. Citobun (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * It's not personal attack, I just described how you abused other users. You also have this disgraceful habit of scanning through other people's edit history. Of course you and your friends would not like me hanging around when I improve articles according to WP:NPOV. But if you accuse other editors POV editing, they would also say the same to you. It's a two-way traffic. In your case, we can see you have very much anti-police POV. STSC (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Where is the evidence of my supposed "anti-police POV"? Yet again you are making unsubstantiated personal attacks against me. Citobun (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Not at all PA, you accuse other editors having POV, I just point out you too have POV. Your allegation no.1 above clearly shows that. There's just a normal sentence saying the police taking actions against the violent protesters but you also wanted to include other people. You said this is "police violence"! I remember particularly in one occasion where the source clearly says the police searched the flat of the activist but you deliberately changed it to the police broke into the flat of the activist.. There's a very big difference between "searching" and 'breaking into". Your intention clearly wanted to deceive the readers into believing the police broke into the flat. (Note also how you abused me in your edit summary). STSC (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 * It is a personal attack if you make these allegations without evidence. I have provided evidence of your chronic, long-term POV-pushing, which you have been sanctioned for in the past after you advocated Falun Gong be "eliminated". You're implying that police were only violent against "groups of violent demonstrators", which is plainly WP:OR. I provided sources refuting that in the original posting above. For the second example, again, I didn't add that content in the first place. I was reverting your POV-motivated blanking which included removal of a lot of other content. By the way, that example you chose is another great example of your use of misleading edit summaries (in this case, "undue detail") to obfuscate your political agenda editing, which I and others have provided ample evidence of. Citobun (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * You still lied about this, it was you that added the deceiving content... . You wickedly deceived people by claiming falsely that the police broke in the flat. I've caught you red-handed again. STSC (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Your evidence of my supposed "wickedness" is from nearly four years ago, so I didn't remember that I added that content. The police reportedly didn't have a warrant to search Lam's flat. Citobun (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The police went in the flat with Lam, they did not break in the flat. You clearly intended to deceive people by making up false and libellous information in Wikipedia. Actually the WP:NOTHERE applies to you. STSC (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Comment Based on what i read so far, In my belief Citobun's arguments are far more convincing than STSC. 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) DoctorHell (talk)

 * I would say before went to ANI, it would be a good gesture to open a thread in the talk page, state the problem (e.g. completely no source, synthesis of source, or just 3RR with 24 hours), state the wording on the newspaper or academic paper or reliable source, invite the party involved to participate in the discussion. Use dispute resolution tool etc. Yes there is rare case that the user completely not engaged in any talk page discussion or just running circle to protect his point of view, but then these are the step to show the user is CIR or NOTHERE. Matthew hk (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree with what you say. However, the issues I pointed out here are not content issues.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a behavioural issue you pointed out here. That of the IP. Not STSC. Your proposal to blame STSC for not opposing the IP's actions hard enough remains inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out earlier, (1) BLP violations (particularly unsubstantiated ones) are supposed to be removed. The policy is very clear about this. We don't acknowledge them (or attempt to refute/prove them). Without this, Wikipedia would become like a forum where anything can be posted (making the platform a haven for the likes of Nazis and supremacists) (2) The second issue is that STSC's comments do not seem to demonstrate if they actually understood that the IP's comment was a BLP violation. In any case, my proposal is simply for a warning.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You should note that I did not actually discuss any detail of the rumour itself in my reply to the IP. Wikipedia is not compulsory, I'm under no obligation to delete any material in Wikipedia. I understand BLP policy very well, and I've removed the libellous contents from Junius Ho article but Citobun strongly objected the removal and DoctorHell repeatedly put libellous content back. They should be warned instead. STSC (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained in the OP that libellous content is false. The content at Junius Ho is well-sourced, and therefore doesn't constitute libel. I don't know why you are choosing to ignore this. The fact that you continue to call the content "libellous", deliberately ignoring the basic definition of the word, further demonstrates that you are removing content on purely POV grounds (and defending such behaviour by misrepresenting unrelated policies). Citobun (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Other editors would also say you want to keep the libellous contents on your POV ground. Why didn't you put back what I have removed if you have the sources? Give us the sources now. STSC (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert your edits because, from past experience, I know you will simply start an edit war over it. I am not interested in edit warring. The content in question was already sourced in the body of the article. Citobun (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't make excuse, it's because I have served a DS notice on you. Give us the sources here now, if you cannot then don't make any false accusation against other editors. STSC (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The sources are all in the Junius Ho article. Everything there is well-sourced. I don't know what you mean by DS notice. I asked you on my talk page what you meant by that and you failed to explain it. Citobun (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 * You cannot make up libellous wording just based on the sources per WP:SYNTH. You have deleted the DS notice, it's your problem. STSC (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I didn't add that content in the first place, nor have I reverted you. Please stop trying to portray me as exhibiting editing behaviours that I have not. Secondly, I didn't delete your "DS notice". I asked you to explain exactly what you were asking of me – and you didn't. The "DS notice" is now archived but still plainly visible. Citobun (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, your allegation is wrong. No need to ask me, the DS notice itself has the information. STSC (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Point by point response:

(1) Original sentence "Riot police deployed tear gas and rubber bullets against demonstrators", I thought it was too general so I edited it to "Riot police deployed tear gas and rubber bullets against groups of violent demonstrators". It's because the police started to deploy tear gas and rubber bullets against groups of violent demonstrators as they remained in the streets after the lawful protest march has finished. Citobun said it's "implying that police violence only took place against “violent” protesters". What a nonsense! So, basically, he wants me to add that the police is evil and they hit everyone in the streets. The police was just doing their duty to deal with the violent protesters, but Citobun says it's "police violence"; he considers other editors would be guilty for POV pushing if they don't follow his POV.

(2) I added "not so successful" about the general strike because a general strike is supposed to have everything halted but on that day mostly everything was normal while the biggest union did not join the strike. Source:

(3) Of course they were riots, many protesters have got arrested and charged with rioting already.

(4) I used the same description as the article title which is Tiananmen Square protests.

(5) 'Protesters' is a more precise description than 'citizens'.

(6) One of the edit summaries was short because of my laziness, it's not my intention to mislead; and soon afterward I have rewritten the edit summary in more detail. There's no misleading in the other edit summary because I did shorten the "See also' list because it was unreasonably long. Actually many edits from Citobun do not even have a edit summary at all.

(7) It's a survey of just 1000 telephone respondents, it should not be presented as a fact.

(8) The potentially libellous contents I removed from Junius Ho have no directly connected sources per WP:SYNTH.

 * 2 August: I did not blank, I removed potentially libellous wording "He is known for encouraging violence against his opponents" added by DoctorHell. I moved the rest of the content to a new section.

 * 6 August: DoctorHell put back again "He is known for encouraging violence against his opponents", I removed it. I also served a DS notice on DoctorHell.

 * 21 August: I did not blank, I moved the content to another section, I stated very clearly in my edit summery "mv to 'Controversies' section."

 * 10 September: I removed "scandals" because of no source.

 * 10 September: I changed "Advocating for the killing of Hong Kong independence supporters" to "Call for killing of Hong Kong independence supporters", I thought the word "advocating" was too strong and potentially libellous.

- STSC (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

 * 1) STSC be warned to avoid misleading edit summaries.
 * 2) Citobun be given a short-duration block for WP:HARASSMENT and advised not to bring complaints about STSC up again unless they do something actionable.
 * 3) Edit protection be applied to articles related to the Hong Kong protests until such time as the current situation concludes. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose, particularly the second action. I don't see any evidence of harassment by Citobun in this complaint, where some valid issues have been pointed out by multiple editors. I don't see this complaint as disrupting Wikipedia either. Blocking people for bringing up legitimate issues at ANI only serves to create a Chilling effect on Wikipedia. More importantly blocks are supposed to prevent disruption, not be used punitively and I also note that for the evidence of harassment presented here is from July and has already been acted upon.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Citobun was blocked for harassment in July for PAs against STSC. And their response two months later is this trumped up AN/I filing. I don't think that a clearer picture is needed than that. They clearly have personal issues with STSC and they are clearly allowing those personal issues to cloud their judgment around proper comportment on Wikipedia. I don't think they need to be indeffed, but they do need to be reminded to behave. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And that's the second time Citobun pulled a block in a situation where they were tangling with STSC over a Hong Kong article - the 2017 edit warring block, if you look at article history, it was Citobun in a 1AM situation, and STSC was one of the M in that equation. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the history in question. The page is essentially inactive now so it's easy to find the appropriate edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I found the 3RR/N case that led to Citobun's first block and while both were blocked for edit warring at that time, Citobun was admonished by the blocking admin to avoid PAs on that occasion too. This is a long-standing grudge that has to be put to bed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see an edit war (that too dating back to 2017) for which both STSC and Citobun seem to have been blocked. The other complaint is from July for which Citobun was blocked. I don't see anything in this particular ANI filing which would would remotely count as harassment.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose – Simonm223, what gives? This ANI filing is clearly not harassment nor a personal attack. I've already responded to that claim above, though you chose to ignore it. Citobun (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose - the second action, the issue here is about STSC, not Citobun. DoctorHell (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose #2. It makes no sense. I'm ok with 1 & 3 Proposal #2 is ok. Buffs (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated because the original proposal was changed. Buffs (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose #2. Citobun has raised valid issues, and yes it makes perfect sense for you to have issues with a problematic editor especially when that editor has not changed his/her behaviour in any visible way from years ago. feminist (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2
STSC should be warned. In particular, they should (1) demonstrate an understanding of our WP:BLP policy (2) avoid misleading edit summaries. Any future violations should be blockable.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it leaves Citobun without any response to their vexatious and unnecessary AN/I complaint. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * What is vexatious or objectionable about this AN/I complaint? You keep making completely baseless claims that I am attacking people. I have already linked you to the policy at No personal attacks. Read it. I have provided ample evidence to back up my original allegation. I have not made any personal attacks here, nor harassed anyone. Stop making these baseless accusations. Citobun (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I can see your motive here is trying to harass me after being blocked for personal attack. STSC (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support - Between Citobun and STSC, I view STSC as the greater problem due to the POV slant of his editing and violations of biographies of living persons policy. This is fully demonstrated by the diffs already presented in this thread. I think that a warning to STSC should be sufficient to get the message across.Krow750 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support. STSC should be unequivocally warned to cease making politically slanted edits of dubious veracity that are not backed up by citations to reliable sources. I provided multiple examples of such edits in the original filing above, which neither STSC nor Simonm223 addressed, instead choosing to frustrate the discussion by making baseless personal attacks against me. Citobun (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support Citobun has provided amble evidence. The issue here is STSC's behaviour, not Citobun. I believe to penalize Citobun is to shoot the messenger. DoctorHell (talk) 3:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support in addition to the first proposal (either one or both is ok). Updated as proposal #1 has been modified. Support for this proposal remains and is independent of any other support for this issue. Buffs (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support Ample evidence of thinly veiled, politically slanted editing going back several years. feminist (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose - (1) I'm under no obligation to demonstrate my understanding of anything. (2) One edit summary maybe short and incomplete (who hasn't done that sometimes?) but they're not intentionally misleading; I have also rewritten the edit summary in more details soon after. STSC (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support per above. WMSR (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Addendum
Any objection to adding a note about civility? "...and (3) reminded to remain WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and ensure WP:NPA in his responses." Buffs (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer Buffs (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal by STSC to end this saga
(1) Citobun withdraws his allegations in this ANI.

(2) Citobun and STSC enter into an agreement that:
 * Citobun agrees to use the normal channels of dispute resolution to resolve any content dispute with STSC.
 * STSC agrees to write more detailed edit summaries.

- STSC (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as that is basically proposal #2 without any official warning for you. Bringing this dispute here is a normal channel to deal with disruption, which you seem to be engaged in. And you shouldn't need AN/I to write proper edit summaries—you should be doing it anyway. WMSR (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the proposed agreement is not meant for both parties to comply to do anything now or later. It's just like a declaration for both sides in order to reach a compromise. There was no disruption on my part but I have been wikihounded for a long time. I only offer this proposal so that we may move on. STSC (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4
An admin closes this thread and archives it promptly. No further action. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Seriously? At the very least STSC needs to be warned, since they have not been able to show that they understand WP:BLP and for the misleading edit summaries. I think that's the least that can be done. Otherwise, it sends a pretty wrong signal and is one of the exact things which makes this platform unfriendly for certain groups such as women.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Being honest, with this now the oldest open thread on AN/I, and with it having attracted exactly zero admin feedback to date, a quiet close and archive is the most likely outcome. I mean you might get something grumpy about this being a "content dispute" too. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support - Stop this harassment and persecution on the opponents in content dispute. STSC (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on procedural grounds. Proposal #2 has sufficient backing to declare consensus. Closure without enacting at least that one would be inappropriate. Buffs (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Three of the backers have involved content dispute with me in the past. STSC (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. See WP:CIVIL. Buffs (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is relevant when we establish "consensus". STSC (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Frankly this looks like a content dispute from outside. I got involved in the argument because I saw (and still contend) a pattern of behaviour from Citobun which is close to WP:HARASSMENT and at least a severe failure of WP:AGF. But the ability of Citobun to conjure up four editors, all of whom have a history of anti-Beijing POV comments and edits to make a seriously lacking claim of WP:NOTHERE that included such things as STSC disputing an IP on some iffy comments but not hard enough, and STSC removing an WP:UNDUE WP:PRIMARY source from an article in which a WP:SYNTH interpretation was being used doesn't equal a strong consensus that action needs to occur. And the unwillingness of admins to address this issue is telling. It's nothing. It's always been nothing. The best they conjured was one misleading edit summary. That is what all this text from the people who want STSC kicked off boils down to. And as it's gone on, until I asked to just close it, it eventually simmered down to STSC and Citobun trading barbs at each other. The best thing to do would be to close this thread, and remind editors that they sometimes have to play in the sandbox with people who disagree with them. The most likely thing to happen is for this thread to close; you know, unless one of the central belligerents manages to bait the other into violating WP:CIV on this page in some egregious way, and I think we can all agree that's a low-likelihood scenario we'd all rather just nix. So let's just be done with this pointless exercise in attempting to vote an editor off the island and pretend it never happened. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no, it's not relevant. Every person regardless of their involvement has a chance to have a voice in the matter. An admin can decide whether the opinions are meatpuppetry, but I'm not seeing it. If you piss off 10 people and all 10 call for you to be blocked, "But all of them have a grievance against me!" is not a reason to discount their opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but the exceptionally weak quality of the evidence provided and the clear animosity between the complaining editor, their compatriots, and STSC are relevant, and together form a reason to discount their opinion. This is a petty squabble between these editors and the best suggestion I can propose is that the matter should be dropped. Unilaterally. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Simonm223, you are now falsely accusing me of Canvassing. I don't know these other users that you call my "compatriots" nor did I invite them here. You have also made other unsubstantiated allegations against others here. Again, provide evidence (diffs) and stop making baseless allegations. Honestly you should also be warned for the disruptive behaviour you have displayed in this filing, seemingly intended to mislead administrators by misrepresenting the situation.

 * This is a textbook case of Civil POV pushing by a user who has been topic banned in the past. He moved on to different topics, but exhibits precisely the same disruptive editing behaviour that got him sanctioned in the first place. Full stop. Citobun (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Citobun, if I intend to accuse you of canvasing I will say it in a straightforward manner rather than implying, as I did, that there are a group of editors on Hong Kong articles with a shared anti-Beijing POV who all occupy roughly the same set of articles. Please dial back the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality slightly. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * You wrote that I "conjured up" a group of editors whom you referred to as my "compatriots", thereby obliquely accusing me of two things: canvassing and being acquainted with the others. I earlier asked you to stop making false allegations such as these, but you continue to do so with zero substantiation. Again, you appear to be intentionally misrepresenting the situation in order to mislead administrators. As I have asked you several times before: if you make allegations against others, please back them up with diffs. Citobun (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Citobun, if you don't know the background of the FG issue then you'd better not to make any false statement about it; you weren't even here at that time. Your accusation of POV pushing against other users is just a smokescreen to cover up your own POV pushing. STSC (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Buffs, you yourself have been blocked for harassing other editor in a content dispute. I don't think you may have any vote in this matter. STSC (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Poisoning the well.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me?! What the hell? Regardless of whether ANYONE has been blocked before for ANY reason, if they are in good standing with the community, they are allowed to voice an opinion unless canvassed or via meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. None of these apply.
 * For those interested, I openly announced I would be doing edits to a series of pages, while performing these non-controversial edits to that series of pages a person with whom I had a disagreement edited a page I was coming up on. As soon as I done so, she claimed I was stalking her. It was a setup and an admin fell for it hook, line, and sinker. That same admin later had related multiple actions of his undone via WP:AE (this action expired before said review).
 * At this point it seems your intention is not to address the issues brought forth here, but to smear, belittle, demean, and cast aspersions on those who object to your behavior. As DreamLinker stated, you're just attempting to poison the well rather than make substantive remarks. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the issues but you never have. STSC (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I never have what? Buffs (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have never addressed the issues. STSC (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't mean you're not allowed to have your say but it would be unwise for you to vote because 'harassment' is also one of the issues here. Just my opinion. STSC (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Lo meiin continuing battleground behaviour
While looking through recent changes, I noticed to the talk page of a blocked editor. The highlight of that diff is Thank you for inviting me to that noticeboard in order to defuse the lies spread by traitorous Chinese in Taiwan, which is blatant battleground behaviour, and also hints at illegitimate CANVASSING. The user was previously warned at AE by for battleground behaviour two days ago. I also note that the aforementioned diff comments on an ARBPIA3 issue, saying I would also like to invite you to the Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia as there are some pro Israeli POV editors that are trying to break consensus and bring Palestine to the same humiliating classification as Taiwan, in contravention of the General Prohibition, and again appearing to be CANVASSING.

Another edit today, which again follows the pattern, is discussion that was closed procedurally.

I think this needs a closer look taken at it. Thanks, ∰ Bellezzasolo ✡   Discuss  18:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Lo meiin routinely refers to Taiwan as "rebellious province Taiwan" (a POV talking point from the government of the People's Republic of China), but, wow, that latest diatribe is

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019