Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:VNHRISHIKESH

User:VNHRISHIKESH already has a rather problematic editing history, with in a month one so far successful article creation, and 10 or so failed ones (mostly deleted, some draftified). This includes things like moving Paracelsus to Philips Paracelsus, a name not used anywhere else. They received warnings for the use of their user page for promotion, copyright violations, and general disruption.

On 13 July, they asked for protection of their user page and talk page[1] to preserve it from vandalism. Neither page had ever been vandalized, and the request was swiftly rejected[2].

Today, an IP appears[3], makes two vandal edits to All, and then makes the most gentle of vandal edits ever to VNHRISHIKESH's user talk page[4][5]. The IP then stops editing, and 3 minutes later our editor reappears and again asks for protection[6] (the last edited three minutes before the very short-lived vandal IP appeared). To put the icing on the cake, both the editor and the IP turn out to be from south Kerala.

Vandalizing Wikipedia to get your user page and talk page protected must be among the more stupid things I have seen here, but coupled with the waste of time this editor has turned out to be otherwise for most of their edits, I don't think they should stay around for much longer. (Oh, as an aside, with IP masking in place this would have been a lot harder to check of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Though I generally agree that this user may not be ready yet to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, from their personal website they link to at their user page it appears that they are a young editor, and I don't feel that the tone of the report above reflects that very well. Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, can we please block VNHRISHIKESH until they have some more competence and maturity? Since the above, they have given a rather confusing reply[7] with some clarification afterwards[8]: so apparently they claim that they got logged out, vandalized All[9] and again after being reverted[10], then immediately vandalized and undid this at their own talk page[11]: and then not only did they again log in 3 minutes later, but they saw those last two edits and didn't realise they had made those edits and called for protection[12].

And then they started moving their poor articles, which were draftified by a range of editors (including me), back to the mainspace, creating stuff like Factors affecting Temperature distribution (again draftified by me now). You can look at this article at the time of redrafticiation[13] for yourself, note how this article on temperature distribution on Earth starts with a graph of the average body temperature of humans throughout the day, as if that graph has anything to do with the subject.

An editor who one the one hand vandalizes articles to get their user page protected, and on the other hand produces such rubbish articles, is an editor we can do without. If age is a factor, then they can come back once they have matured a lot. Fram (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Once more, I agree that VNHRISHIKESH has a serious competence issue (they're already extended confirmed and I'm not sure if they even made one edit that is genuinely helpful), but from all that I can see it is in extremely good faith, and it should be dealt with accordingly. I'm not sure if mentorship really is a thing here (I know that I don't have the time for that), but if no mentor is willing to step up we may indeed need an indefinite block. I just wish we had some kind of procedure to kindly tell off young users who if they would come back in five or ten years time would very likely make great editors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, everyone Here is VNHRISHIKESH. I understood that you're going to block me from editing. I think you did't notice my whole edits in this encyclopaedia. I think that my edits were perfect and I can say that I have a competitive mind and maturity. So please don't block me from editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VNHRISHIKESH (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indef. The combination of "I think that my edits were perfect" with a clear state of imperfection does not show any possible scope for improvement.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Block Indefinitely - Whilst it appears highly likely that this user is fairly young, and we have all suffered from the foolishness of youth at some point in our lives, that does not alter the fact that an increasing amount of time and effort has been spent in tidying up after them; especially so when they are (almost certainly) deliberately wasting people's time by vandalising their own talkpage in order to get it protected for some reason. To be frank, competence is required; block until they can return and contribute positively (which is likely to be in several years time...). --Jack Frost (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This user created a stub called "Pigments in Leaves", which was quickly draftified. They expanded it (with homework-assignment-like prose), and it was declined, twice. They then unilaterally moved it into mainspace without modifications. Oh, and Factors affecting Temperature distribution is somehow live in mainspace again. I lack the inclination to sort out the edit history there. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• And then today, they created this, which was soon after draftified of course. It now looks like this. Fram (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just in case it wasn't clear from my comments above, we need an indefinite block for this editor (though not a community ban!); we just need someone or somehow to do it gently. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Block, regretfully. This seems like a textbook case of Competence is required. They're obviously trying to edit in good faith, but the complete lack of understanding of core policies like notability and verifiability, combined with issues relating to content forking, unencyclopaedic writing and being unwilling to listen to advice from much more experienced editors means that their contributions are simply becoming a massive time sink. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:CIR; too much ongoing work in cleaning up their messes and handling frivolous requests. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block Obviously lacks the competence and maturity to constructively contribute long-term. I mean look at Draft:Famous scientists, just created today.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Block Their article creations are poorly sourced and often have spelling, grammar, or tone issues. For example, their latest creation Draft:Encounter Marine Park has lots of puffery and mis-conjugated verbs, and no secondary sources. Not to mention that their very first talk page message concerned Atom:some basic facts, a duplicate of the super-basic Atom article. It is apparent from their article creations and lack of response that they have poor command of English. It reminds me of Risean 12345 (talk · contribs), another user I encountered recently who was indeffed for similar reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have filed a WP:CR request for this thread. They are now editing rapid-fire at Draft:List of famous scientists, a draft they created that is redundant to the various Lists of scientists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Don't block It appears from [latest reply at the talk page] that they are actually learning. They appear to have taken up advice against their Draft:List of famous scientists, owing to its subjective and redundant scope. Thus, I retrach my previous !vote. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I think that what you seem to be referring to, i.e., this (I realised it. I found your notification. Then I wasted my time......) and this (Thanks for your valuable advice.....), shows once again that they are here in incredibly good faith, but not necessarily that they are competent enough to do more work than they create. If there is no one willing to mentor them (David notMD, Haploidavey?), it may take a long time before they become a net positive. Clearly, it's a difficult call though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban a textbook case of WP:CIR.Ratnahastin ^tålk 02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment; he's undoubtedly well-intentioned but seems completely in a world of his own, and when it comes down to it, way too pleased with himself to receive advice or criticism and learn from both (QED time and again). Like others here, I think that's at least partly to do with age, and therefore he might grow out of it but I'm not at all sure this is the place to do it. I'm not sure that his litany of apologies means anything much, or that the User has determination to overcome (or even recognise) basic competence issues, or that I've the patience to help someone who's so determined to go their own way. I mean, you've seen the sheer length of his talk-page? And barely an acceptable edit elsewhere. A net negative. That said, if he was open to mentoring, I might be up for it. But it needs to be at his initiative, and I'd be pretty merciless. Haploidavey (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support block If errors were in one area, mentoring might be plausible, but it is creating and abandoning drafts, reverting draftifications, inadequate referencing, grammar problems, and no evidence of being on the steep part of any learning curve. At > 100 edits a week, a massive time sink. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban Per WP:CIR. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef, unfortunately. WP:CIR. DoubleCross (‡) 09:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Users adding images to articles at a high rate of speed

Yesterday, I noticed Siwema_Nikini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was adding images to the very top of articles (i.e, the first line of the articles) with the nonsensical edit summary "#WPWP #WPWPARK". Someone asked the user what they were doing but did not receive a response. The most recent edit under that account was roughly three hours ago.

I just noticed the account Mary calist mlay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making the exact same types of edits on my watchlist at a particularly high rate of speed. In the last seven hours, they've added images to more than 250 articles, all with the same nonsensical edit summary (except now they've added "#WPWPTZ" to the list of hash tags). I did a spot check of the edits and while most of the recent image additions have been to the top of articles, many have been to the bodies of articles too. I left a message on the user's talk page[14] but they have so far ignored it and continued adding images to articles. I also noticed that the editing of both accounts have overlapped -- the switching of accounts was apparently not account abandonment.

The images being added aren't wrong, at least from what I can tell (I'm not familiar with most of the features being referenced). In fact, some of the edits probably improved some of the articles. However, a lot of the edits seem unnecessary and they're being done at such a high rate of speed (with a misleading edit summary too under at least two accounts). Given their unresponsiveness to talk page messages, the use of multiple accounts, etc., and because I'm getting tired, I think this might merit another set of eyes. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a prize at stake. WPWP = m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021. WPWPARK and WPWPTZ are community identifiers listed on those pages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it, please disregard. (It would be nice if the edit summaries were a bit more descriptive so others who weren't familiar with this knew what was going on.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) m:Guide on how to use WPWP Campaign Hashtags#How to use the #WPWP Campaign hashtag - 'The hashtag is not a substitute for a "a descriptive edit summary". The hashtag, #WPWP or the community-specific hashtag must be added to the edit summary box of pages edited alongside a descriptive edit summary.' A friendly word of advice might be in order. Narky Blert (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed Hormorkunmy doing the same thing. They have re-introduced an incorrect image to the Matthew Cream article, which was removed earlier this year. I have a COI so I am not interested in editing the article, and had actually forgotten that I saw it happen, until this thread popped up. (Will notify Hormorkunmy of this thread.) Daniel (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Note I removed the Matthew Cream image, and also put in a rename request at Commons, to hopefully prevent this from happening again. I notice that multiple editors have raised the issue in the past that the image does not depict the subject. (And my own research suggests the same.) Levivich 17:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Levivich! Daniel (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Purely for info - we have edit filter 1073 (recent hits) tracking all edits using the WPWP tags. firefly ( t · c ) 13:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Which includes some of my undos, as I've added the tags and "photobombing" in the edit summaries. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

More editors are joining in. Many of their contributions are helpful; some are not. At the risk of promoting a leaderboard, this list summarises the edits. It would have been nice to have some input into or at least notice of this initiative. Certes (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think we need to start giving out blocks if editors are noncommunicative and add images in a disruptive manner. A contest taking place is not a free pass for behavior that we would not tolerate otherwise. --Rschen7754 17:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the same redundant image from Mogadishu University no less than four times - each time it had been added by a different user. Apart from that, I have reverted a number of other image additions, and warned several users about disruption.

Some weeks ago, I started a thread at m:Talk:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021#Cryptic edit summaries, and the replies there by T Cells (talk · contribs) are not entirely to my satisfaction - for example, there is no assurance that the contest organisers will check the participating edits, let alone revert the bad ones. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

T Cells did ask all part taking organizers of the different languages and communities to do so, but they might not check this on a daily basis. One global organizer (= T Cells) cannot be held responsible for all edits done in the total campaign, and individual users are always responsible for their own edits. If a user cannot or will not converse (even on a basic level) with the rest of the language community even though they keep on doing disruptive edits, I think a block is indeed appropriate. It is against the competition rules to add images to Wikipedia's without a decent description in the language of that Wikipedia, or for instance to add pictures in bulk, like adding complete galleries. The goal of the competition is to add unused images to articles without any images, and on a secondary level to maybe create a more cultural diversity in images used in an article if appropriate - but always keeping in mind proportionality of the amount of images in relation to the article text. Ciell (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of these edits just don't seem right. Like look at this. Article is about HMS Havock (H43), but the picture is of HMS Hasty (H24) with the caption of "sister ship HMS Hunter"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

More edits by same user that I'm unsure about (ie, they could be fine, but just unsure of appropriateness myself): [15], [16] (adding a picture of apparently a U.S. Navy ship to an article about an Imperial Japanese one), [17], etc. Most seem fine though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Similar issues at HMS Exmoor (L61) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where two of the editors involved in this stupidity have added a completely incorrect image in the last 24 hours, despite the image including a very specific note about which ship it refers to. I don't see why the time of other editors should be wasted cleaning up the mess this is creating. FDW777 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue with this contest is it values quantity over quality. TBH I don't think it's reasonable to expect the contest organisers to check 51,000 edits, but our volunteer corps can't either, so this is a conundrum. I think overall more edits are helpful than not, but the bad edits can be quite a problem. Apparently the comment by the organisers suggests local blocks for issues disqualify from the contest, so that should be an incentive to ensure accuracy. If the community wants, we could also do a local edit filter throttle reminding users of local policy requirements if they're adding images too quickly. Or we can just tough it out and deal with individual users if there are problems. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Should we be allowing someone who is banned from English Wikipedia to organise a contest that includes edits to English Wikipedia articles? Doesn't that violate the spirit of WP:PROXYING? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think next year the English Wikipedia must opt-out of the contest, and we must make it very clear. Yesterday the #WPWP edits which were on my watchlist showed an error rate of about 50% (bad quality, bad captions, sometimes the image did not show the subject of the article). I understand that some people need money and hope to earn some in this way, but for me 50% error rate is close to the point when I would just blank-revert everything without looking at individual edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed, couldn't we just set that filter mentioned above to disallow? --Rschen7754 18:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

    Rschen7754, we could, and to be honest given the amount of disruption this event seems to cause I wouldn’t be against it. We could alternatively start by throttling such edits via filter and displaying a warning to users that images have to be relevant/useful, and to use edit summaries. firefly ( t · c ) 21:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed this is a mess—blindlynx (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• I came here to post about this, It seems like a huge chunk of the things flagged 'likely to have problems' at recent changes are these edits. The sheer volume makes it difficult to go through and check for quality and correct formatting without having a dedicated proj doing this and that seems like a waste of time—blindlynx (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• See also Aminwa_21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mohamed mfuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—blindlynx (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• And Emmanuel Obiajulu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has made just shy of 2000 edits according to that quarry link above. I've already had to harp on him twice for adding captions to stuff that's popped up on my watchlist. The rest is far too much for me to check. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• In checking his last 15-20 edits I've already had to revert 3 additions as being completely the wrong species. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I would add to the above list of problems that some images are being added with text captions that just repeat the filename of the image, which may be unintelligible. BD2412 T 21:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yup, that's one of the things I had to ask Emmanuel to stop doing. Some of the captions he was jamming in were German. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Or sometimes without a caption or a caption identical to the name of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been an issue for a good 2-3 years now. I said it before and I'll say it again IMHO this "competition" should be banned entirely here. I'm sure a minority of those who participate in this probably do so constructively however the vast majority don't. All's this stupid competition does is incite disruption for the sake of a prize and it also creates mess for others to clear up. Ban it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Davey2010, problems "for ...2-3 [elsewhere, "many"] years" can't be attributed to the WPWP campaign earlier than its first run: July 2020 (last year). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Deborahjay, That's really really weird - I swear this has been going on for longer than 2020 I swear by it .... but both the meta page and edit filter were created in 2020 so it would seem I'm wrong here, Certainly seems a lot longer than a year, Thanks,

When I was skimming over the edit filter logs, the vast majority of edits being made were constructive, correct and helpful. I would guesstimate that the good rate is over 90%, based on the samples I quickly checked. So really, I'm worried whether banning it might be a bit knee-jerky. Not a single user has been locally blocked for this yet. What's the rate of error? Is the rate of error limited to certain users only? Can we throttle contributions to X per day? Questions like these should probably be asked before considering banning the contest. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, Unfortunately every edit I've seen with the WP hashtag I've had to revert (as it's not been an improvement) and unfortunately this issue has been a reoccurring problem here for many years so it's easy to assume all have been bad. If it's true that the majority (say 70-90%) of edits have actually been good then I would certainly support some sort of limit over banning. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I know there were issues with this competition last year as well - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive322#Image_competition? - so it does seem to be an ongoing problem. For some anecdata on my part, I scanned about 15-20 edits by Emmanuel Obiajulu and found no less than 3 that were incorrect species for the article they were placed on (Placing an image of Genera thisspecies on Genera thatspecies mostly). These were images that were clearly labelled with Genera thisspecies on the Commons page, so it's not an issue with Commons data, it's carelessness. I also noticed Adorvisa adding images today; they have now been blocked as a sock of RogerNiceEyes, who was blocked in March for high-speed inaccurate image additions to articles. Not sure if it's a coincidence, as Adorvisa wasn't using the WPWP hashtags, but if it isn't, it's indicative of the kind of editing behavior this sort of competition attracts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I tried to leave a note at AN at the start of the month (link) so we could get ahead of it this time around, but it didn't grab much attention heh. It may well attract unconstructive behaviour, but so does Wikipedia in general. It also attracts a lot of positive behaviour. I just don't think we should judge whether to ban the contest entirely without good evidence it's untenable and no other solution to reasonably accommodate it is possible. Given that we haven't even tried warn or throttle filters, and are mostly relying on anecdotes, I'm not convinced either has been done yet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I did block a user related to this, see 2 threads below. --Rschen7754 00:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I see. Well, then personally I think we should do this:

1. Passive warnings. When users are participating in this contest, use an edit filter to show them messages to welcome them to English Wikipedia, remind them of the applicable policies, remind them to take it slow and focus on quality, and the consequences of disruption.
2. If that fails, throttle contributions. If we limit users without extra userrights to 25/day or something, I strongly suspect any disruption will be eliminated while we'll still be keeping the productiveness of this campaign. The users cited above are adding literally 500 images per day each, so some errors are unsurprising. I prefer #1 because even at the higher rate most peoples' contribs are usually good, we just need occasional reminders to make the mistakes less.
3. If both fail, then consider banning the contest.

Personally I think any of the first two ideas will have desirable effects in better articles and less disruption, but we didn't try to actually do anything last year or this - discussion just faded out - so I dunno why we'd expect the situation to change this time around. Whatever we do, there is still over one month of this contest left (it ends 31 Aug), so we should probably figure something out rather than shelving it for yet another year. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wait a minute, the person leading this campaign is banned on here?! That already splits the communication here. – The Grid (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• The Grid Yes, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. In addition to a site ban they were given a specific topic-ban from images. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Could there be automation involved with image selection here? I've found multiple accounts adding the same erroneous images to the same articles. Siwema Nikini just turned up to add some of the same bad images that Unofficiallummy had done only hours earlier (albeit with thumbnails in infoboxes and sometimes duplicating the ones that are already there, thereby being especially disruptive). Siwema Nikini is continuing despite a level-4 warning - should these be reported to AIV, reported here, or let be for the time being? --Sable232 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• The fact that this competition has been a problem for many years and that the main organizer is banned from English Wikipedia makes it pretty clear that the English Wikipedia should opt-out of this campaign starting next year. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• I have noticed that Emmanuel Obiajulu is also doing this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• If the competition (with the "#WPWP"* tags) leads to such sloppy low quality work, why don't we community ban the competition and its participants (self declared via tags) from the English Wikipedia?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know why people keep repeating this. It's factually untrue. Has anybody actually looked at the filter log, 1073 (hist · log)?

  I've reviewed over half the last 50 contribs, again, and found zero cases of mistaken identity and two technical errors (ie duplicate image). There are a couple more that aren't perfect but are far from disruptive and unlikely to be higher than non-contest newbie error rates. The impression of the contest participants in this section is not representative of most participants or most contributions. That's a simple fact anyone can verify by browsing the public filter log themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I did prefix my sentence with an if, however you do make a strong point that the users discussed here suffer from a selection bias for disruption and are therefore not representative of the contestant cohort overall.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I jinxed it maybe. Avg error rates shot up the past 2 days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This topic was also briefly raised on 11 July at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Added image #WPWP #WPWPKWR. CMD (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely and rationally think that we should ban the contest. IMO rapid addition of images is just a horrible thing waiting to happen. Adding an image should involve an accuracy check, a rationale check, a licensing check, and a layout check. We're just going to get a bunch of images with bad licensing added to articles from this. With the whole focus being rate of speed, contestant's aren't going to check the image licensing. And we can't assume everything on Commons is okay (I nominate stuff for deletion on commons that I run into in articles here several times a month, because there's tons of bad licensing there). And we shouldn't be encouraging people to cram as many images into articles as possible - it causes layout and sometimes accessibility issues (see MOS:SANDWICH, among other things). We're just going to wind up with a bunch of articles crammed to the gills with images with often-shitty licensing because of this, and that's frankly disruptive. At a minimum, we need to make it clear that this contest should not be adding images to FAs - the FA criteria include image layout, licensing, and relevance checks, and a contest about speed editing images to articles is going to cause issues with the FA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose any unnecessarily harsh knee-jerk reactions. I get that some on enwp are automatically skeptical (or even cynical) of events/contests that lead to lots of new users editing, especially if organized outside of enwp. But apart from warning/blocking specifically problematic users (as we would in any other context), we should not be talking about banning the event or similarly harsh actions without (a) decent data on the quality of these edits beyond a handful of anecdotes and assumptions, and (b) more information about what will happen afterwards. T Cells/Wikicology is one of dozens of people involved here; it's not "his" contest. Let's ping a few of them at least somewhat active on enwp: @Deborahjay, Anthere, Jamie Tubers, and Astinson (WMF): are you aware of any plans to check the quality of contributions on the English Wikipedia? Are there any plans for evaluating the quality of contest contributions afterwards? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged above by @Rhododendrites:, I thought I might make a couple observations. First some context: I am part of a team working on improving the quality of support for campaign activities in the Wikimedia movement (see meta:Campaigns). We work on designing systems of support so that we can advance movement-wide work to fill topic/content/quality gaps on wikis in general. In that role I have been serving as a advisor on this campaign.

I want to make several observations in my capacity as a strategist:

• From all of the documented problems that I am reading so far in this discussion, and some spotchecking I did on the edit filter, campaign participants are not making any more bad edits than if they were normal enthusiastic newcomers in other contexts (and I suspect if we did analysis of the edits, the revert rate would be much lower than average, especially from newish contributors). The reason we are discussing this is that the community can see all of these edits together in one simple way (the hashtags) which makes it really transparent where the problems are coming from. Transparency should help us have better discussions to find constructive solutions, not punish participants.
• Many of the errors that I am finding in my own spotcheck of content and pointed to above appear to be originating from Commons or other Wikipedias. Even as a very experienced Wikipedia/Wikidata/Commons contributor in my volunteer capacity (User:Sadads): when I work on media files, I too end up accidently trusting other editors work in ways that creates the occasional error. Rooting out these problems on other wikis is complex, and hard for experienced editors in general; helping a newcomer figure out that kind of workflow would be even harder and would be an unusually high standard for participation on our wikis.
• As several folks have said already: if we are serious about the "anyone can edit" ethos of the project, enthusiasm for our mission and the potential for helping Wikipedia by adding images should be honed by improving the strategies for reception (see proposals below by one of the coordinators below @Deborahjay:). Remember that by introducing a minor quality error in good faith, by, for example, adding a less than helpful caption on a page it creates another low-hanging opportunity for new editors to fix content. Almost everyone in this discussion probably started fixing these kinds of errors on the Wiki in their first 500 edits or so -- its important to remember that we were all newcomers at one point, and learning from mistakes and fixing small errors is core to how people start in our community.
• There are a lot of signals that participants from last year's campaign were retained or reactivated well in both English and other language communities. Again, in spot checking other events and campaigns, a number of participate in other campaigns had #WPWP edits in their contributions (in both events with and without prizes). We see similar patterns with simple-edit oriented campaigns like #1lib1ref. Unfortunately we don't yet have a transparent, easy to leverage system for exploring these kinds of patterns in campaigns at a analytical/statistical level without a lot of very skilled technical work (part of what we hope to begin working on this year at WMF). I can advise the organizers or interested editors on how to do this kind of analysis after we get past the heat of the moment -- but I think it would be a shame to shut down a campaign that is successful at helping new editors feel like they can contribute to the community.
• This year the organizers significantly reduced prizes and restructured the instructions for the campaign to emphasize edit summaries and quality image checking (see the main campaign page on Meta). If contributors are not following the instructions, its on them and the community should feel confident warning and blocking folks who don't respond.

I hope the observations are helpful -- and I, personally, as a long-time Wikipedian, hope that English Wikipedia doesn't lose this pipeline of potentially fruitful newcomers and productive edits. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Alex for those comments. I second.

I am mostly involved in the Wiki Loves Africa specific prize (using WLA images to illustrate articles). I will note that I do intend to do some review of the insertions mid-August. I am currently not much online so it is complicated for me to do it right now. This being said, I must clarify that, similar to last year, I put some requirements with regards to the Wiki Loves Africa specific prize, so as to limit the risks of disruption and motivate editors to improve smaller languages. The rules for the prize this year may be read here m:Wiki Loves Africa 2021/WPWP. Specifically

• 1st prize - US $100 gift card
• 1st to 3rd prizes – WLA souvenirs (if the post office is more efficient than it has been in the recent 18 months...)

All WLA years are eligible ... BUT the first prize will consider edits made to ANY language EXCEPT English and French. Which suggests there should be limited disruption HERE on the English Wikipedia. Besides, to be eligible, the participant must have registered an account before January 2021 and must have made at least 300 mainspace edits to any language Wikipedia before 1st June 2021, so there is no incentive to complete newbies to participate. Last, they must abide with the general rules of the contest (descriptions and such).

Side note, per hashtag tool, 92 pages concerned on en.wp so far [18]. Last... any abuse --> block is perfectly fine by me... Anthere (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to what has already been stated by other pinged users, I believe the appropriate step to take here is to sanction individual users accordingly (including a ban if necessary), not to cancel the entire contest altogether. I have reached out to the lead organizer of the contest and the plans being set in place to mitigate future occurrences seem solid enough. So I'd advise to sanction the vandals to put a stop to the disruptive edits.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

100% agree with everything Astinson noted here... the burden/expectation put onto new editors of immediate perfection in particular is such antithetical to what Wikipedia should be about... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Luckily this is not the first time that the contest has been run, so the organisers should be able to link to the evaluation of last year's event against the targets that were set before it took place. Or is this just another case of "every experiment has to be adjudged a success because of sunken costs"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• ANI is for addressing specific users' conduct; may I suggest moving the broader discussion of the contest and enwiki to the pump, where it will get more attention from our community (and not turn this ANI report into a megathread). Levivich 20:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • See discussion of proposed remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remedies_(poll). -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

From a Commons perspective, we have seen an uptick in copyvios uploaded for the purpose of adding them to articles for WPWP. Not sure what the best solution for the problem is, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree we need to scrap it. Me and other editors have had to repeatedly remove an incorrect image added to the Lewis O'Brien (footballer) article by multiple editors as part of this nonsense. GiantSnowman 07:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• I stumbled across a parallel problem -- the additions not of images, but of the words "image of" in captions, so that "Joe Shmoe" now reads "Image of Joe Shmoe" (or "Portrait of Joe Shmoe"), which is not an improvement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from WPWP communities liaison organizer

Hello everyone, I am User:Deborahjay, the communities liaison lead for the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Campaign and a longtime contributor to the English Wikipedia. The WPWP international organizing team has been following this discussion closely and noting the concerns raised here. We agree that the level of disruption (mostly by new editors) is enormous and that we must moderate their participation or contributions, especially in high-traffic Wikipedias such as the EN WP.

We are genuinely sorry for these disruptions and we take responsibility for the problem. We are immediately asking organizers at the participating community level to patrol the edit-filter log and help with cleanup. They do not need to wait till the end of the campaign; we are now at its midpoint.

In other to stop or significantly reduce the disruption, we are proposing the following remedies:

Proposal 1

1. Passive warnings. When users are participating in this campaign, use an edit filter to show them messages to welcome them to English Wikipedia, repeat the applicable WPWP policies, remind them to take it slow and focus on quality, and the consequences of disruption.
2. Throttle contributions of new users. Limit users without extra userrights to 25 edits/day or less.

Proposal 2

Limit participation on the English WP to only users with 1 year old account and at least 500 edits to mainspace on the English Wikipedia.

We strongly believe that if any of the proposed steps are accepted and implemented, this would take care of the disruption and any erring editors should be blocked per the community blocking policy. Thank you. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if the contest organisers required participants (who are not already experienced editors) to go through a 'training course' before being able to edit. This would include them talking 1–1 with an experienced volunteer or the organisers to learn more about selecting relevant and high quality images, adding appropriate captions, technical details like how to actually add the image properly and where in the article to put it, etc.

Anyway, it's clear a consensus is forming and actions need to be taken, and a push towards a consensus is needed here so we can do something, so I have proposed remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remedies_(poll). Both of your proposals (or well, technically the first was mine ;)) would be part of "option 2" there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Close and consolidate

Unless there are outstanding concerns with specific users that need deliberation here, can I propose closing this section? There are lots of useful comments here, and thanks to the organizers/advisors who have shared their observations and intentions, but since this thread has become more about the event than specific users, we're having parallel conversations. The thread at AN has progressed to the point of a more concrete proposal and it would be useful to have further discussion of this event in a single place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati - Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty

• Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bhauma dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Varman dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) has recently started some POV edits on Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty, e.g [19] and [20], [21] where he is removing reliable sources and replacing them by older sources that are contradicted by the newer sources. He has been reverted a number of times, but Bhaskarbhagawati would edit war ([22], [23], [24]) and stop just short of violating 3RR. Nevertheless, Bhaskarbhagawati would make minimal effort to engage in any discussion or to come to a consensus. I left a notice on this talk page to engage his opposing editors in discussion[25], but to no avail[26],[27] etc.

Bhaskarbhagawati is topic banned from the languages of Assam ([28]) and recently he was recently temporarily blocked for violating the ban ([29]). I request the administrators to take some action because he is displaying the same behavior that he did when he was banned and blocked.

Pinging El_C and EdJohnston.

Chaipau (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Two back-to-back ANI threads, two pings in a row! Do I win a prize? I want a prize! El_C 19:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Chaipau for your effort, i will reply point wise.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 19:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Here is another instance of Bhaskarbhagawati removing cited texts: [30]. This is a persistent problem with this editor who has not relented on his point of view despite many attempts to come to a consensus. Pinging Richard Keatinge who facilitated a discussion on this topic. Chaipau (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging unrelated editors to current dispute (WP:CANVASSING ?).भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 08:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:APPNOTE. Chaipau (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati, can you explain why you removed references here from the Bhauma dynasty article? At first sight, these appear to be reliable sources. If you think you received consensus for this removal of sources, can you link to wherever that occurred? EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, will reply soon.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 16:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

All right, i am responding to points raised by Chaipau. In backdrop, Chaipau is a known editor with political overtones. His nationalistic zeal overtakes academics. His recent conduct, such as diff is not sustainable in real world diffdiffdiff.

(i) Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) has recently started some POV edits on Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty These are uniform with multiple well grounded sources (1) (2), all removed by them with brute force (see point vi).

(ii) e.g [31] and [32], [33] This should atleast not brought up, it was long resolved diff and he is well informed about it diff (bluntly rejected by him).

(iii) [34] This carrying on from last point, plus infobox, capital and reliable sources are reinstated.

(iv) [[35]] The kingdom has long standing capital diff but they removed capital along-with citations without discourse (see point vi).

(v) where he is removing reliable sources and replacing them by older sources that are contradicted by the newer sources. As continuing from point ii, so called reliable sources are isolated (WP:WEIGHT), replaced by several better known authors and books.

(vi) He has been reverted a number of times Yes, they are in reverting spree diffdiff diff diff diff diffdiffdiffdiff[diffdiffdiffdiffdiff,diffdiffdiffdiffdiff diffdiffdiffdiff, by "one of the many" suspected sock-puppets of Qwertywander (their homogeneous comments about Chutia kingdom, Varman dynasty etc.) diff(Requesting a checkuser test).

(vii) but Bhaskarbhagawati would edit war Unfounded accusation.

(viii) ([36], [37], [38]) All content are as routine, WP:WEIGHT issues are addressed. They are not able to provide at minimum two sources for unacademic claims.

(ix) and stop just short of violating 3RR Never engaged in reverting like this.

(x) Nevertheless, Bhaskarbhagawati would make minimal effort to engage in any discussion or to come to a consensus. They are informed several times about it beforehand.

(xi) I left a notice on this talk page to engage his opposing editors in discussion[39] Chaipau post such custom threatening messages on talkpages of other editors diff diff who don't bow to his wishes, its not unprecedented, he threaten to report me here if i don't follow his commands, it is his way of achieving consensus real quick.

(xii) but to no avail[40],[41] As mentioned above his restated his commitment to use isolated sources over academic consensus.

(xiii) They are removing sections, contents, reliable citations forcefully ad infinitum (see point vi), without consensus.

(xiv) In past, he has relentlessly taken content disputes here, explicitly for those editors he distaste, for which he was commanded against diff.

(xv) Chaipau is a old edit warriror diffdiffdiffdiffdiff, who either war vigorously or encourage others to force unilateral consensus. He was blocked for fierce edit-warring in recent past diff, though he promised to behave, it seems that is not happening anytime soon diff.

Thanks ! भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 18:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

References used for Bhaskarbhagawati's post
References

Hello Bhaskarbhagawati. The fact that you disagree with User:Chaipau is noted. Can you please answer my earlier question, whether you received consensus anywhere for your removal of references from the Bhauma dynasty article? EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Link is above (point ii), thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 21:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bhaskarbhagawati. I was requesting a link to a talk page discussion where other editors agreed with you that certain references you disapprove of ought to be removed from the Bhauma dynasty article. You did provide two links to discussions. In the first of these, the only two other participants are now blocked. The only other link to a discussion was a thread at Talk:Bhauma dynasty where you and Chaipau discuss the matter and don't come to any agreement. This doesn't amount to a consensus in your favor. Both you and Chaipau have been blocked in the past; you are the only one still under a topic ban. My conclusion is that your removal of sources from the Bhauma dynasty article was not justified by any talk page consensus. We don't usually like to see people removing references from articles without a good reason. (Makes it appear that you are cherry-picking sources to keep only the ones that agree with you). If this thread is closed without action, you should at a minimum promise not to continue warring at Bhauma dynasty until consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I am OK with any action/inaction on this report as long as the edits the conditions set down are met. Nevertheless, I would like to point out the following for the records:

• I was not involved in the recent edit warring of Bhauma dynasty.
• The [42] is an example of WP:OTHERPARENT. The language is not at all neutral and it contained lies. For example: "Paromita Das (2005) andis faculty in Gauhati University, India; has hardly written any academic works before." is not at all supported, since Paromita Das is published ([43], forgive the terrible formatting)
• The WP:RS response was for Das (2005) alone, but Bhaskarbhagawati had removed Shin (2018) and Sen (1984) as well [44].
• And the edit summary is also not truthful. It is not only Das and Shin who see the Naraka story as a myth, but Sircar as well [45].

Chaipau (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discourse was concerning reliability of sources, same was meticulously talk over in talk page diff. The agreement was reached to pull to WP:RSN diff, resolved, they pronounced it as matter of policy not consensus "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.". He was effectively informed.

The consensus (WP:RSN) retract to 12 October 2017 while they are blocked not long ago (June 23, 2020). Yes, i agree talk-page dialogues are not binding, hence taken to pertinent noticeboard for binding consensus. The unrelated minuscule block decision was taken in my absence (i haven't violate the ban), based on misapprehension topic ban (you). I will appeal in Arbitration Enforcement. As divulged it is matter of policy, we don't use isolated sources (i have no concern if aided by secondary).

Chaipau raised some new points. He do facilitated warring. Policy matters are not WP:OTHERPARENT. They are faculty of Gauhati University but her ideas are not supported in academic circles. Different views of Sen and Shin isolated as well, not buttressed by academicians. The legendary status is not in question diff. She is pointing towards origins, ethnicity etc, and calling him as historical figure. Chaippau pinged you not without reason, he is aware of lengthy tussle between us (you and me) over topic ban. Before i make any promises, I insist redressal of conduct issues (prelude) brought in fifteen points above. Thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 07:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Without adding to the walls of text, I find that Ed Johnston's comments above are valid as are Chaipau's. I don't find significant merit in Bhaskarbhagawati's remarks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I am anticipating Richard Keatinge sooner than later, will reply soon, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 10:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is amusing. Bhaskarbhagawati is citing some meta comments from 2017 from a user who has since been banned to remove references published in 2018—after the remarks were made in WP:RS! This is a rather perverted use of WP:RS, I think. Chaipau (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Without adding to the walls of text, I find that Ed Johnston's comments above are valid as are Chaipau's. I don't find significant merit in Bhaskarbhagawati's remarks", Richard Keatinge wrote. Videlicet, they imply they don't understand current state of affair, notwithstanding X (Chaipau) is right anyway. Not unprecedented diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff, the ideal illustration of deep-rooted WP:TAGTEAM, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 16:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati removed referenced texts not only in Bhauma dynasty, but also in Indo-Aryan migration to Assam [46]. Here too, he removed Taher (2001), actually without any edit summary. This is the same pattern of edit he has made in Bhauma dynasty. I added this incident in addendum. So, could you, Bhaskarbhagawati, please explain why you removed the reference to Taher (2001)? This kind of disruptive behavior is not a one-off for you, but a sustained pattern that has been going on for a decade now, for which you were topic banned. I tagged Richard Keatinge because he has seen your behavior and edit patterns up close in Indo-Aryan migration to Assam page. Tag team? No! Chaipau (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Iteration, replying soon, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 07:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Reiteration, Mohd. Taher has WP:WEIGHT (minority viewpoint) concern diff, edit summary removed isolated source, as discussed in WP:RSN, Chaipau is utterly cognizant of it, being participant, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 17:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, another misrepresentation. The [RSN discussion] was about the presence of Dravidian in Assam. What Bhaskarbhagawati removed here] was the claim that the Indo-Aryans were the third linguistic group to arrive. Chaipau (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Chaipau is at odds with consensus, in addition to policy (notwithstanding of multi-fold apprisal) (WP:DISRUPTIVE EDITING) for extensive stretch (decade), furthermore, engage in long term WP:CANVASSING diffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiff diffdiffdiffdiffdiff. He is facilitating WP:EDITWARRING, through suspected long blocked editor (taking out enduring infobox, citations, sections) diffdiff diff diff diff diffdiffdiffdiff[diffdiffdiffdiffdiff,diffdiffdiffdiffdiff diffdiffdiffdiff, take over set of articles, manifesting WP:OWN.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 17:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Fodbold-fan

Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A very good user (at times), but with a sizeable block log and a history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, which based on this discussion from June is seemingly due to laziness/forgetfulness. And yet, he persists. I therefore propose a topic ban, broadly construed, from any edits related to BLPs. GiantSnowman 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Topic ban: Regretfully, likely necessary. A quick review turned up another such edit [47] which I reverted for lack of sourcing. I attempted to verify the claims in the diff, but despite looking at the websites of the respective clubs I could not find any information which confirmed what Fodbold-fan was saying. There are a lot...and I do mean a lot...of editors who routinely change information on football and football-bio articles without any care in the world for accuracy. Sadly, Fodbold-fan seems to be one of them. User talk response such as [48] and [49] do not inspire confidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support BLP topic ban This editor's dismissive attitude toward Verifiability and BLP policy is simply not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hammersoft and Cullen328: given my comment below, and the way in which the rest of the discussion has gone (which you might not have noticed since originally commenting), I don't think we can say this editor has no desire for accuracy or that edits are unverifiable as such. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Switching to oppose for now. Although I haven't waited for Fodbold-fan to respond to Valereee's direct question, I will go out on a limb here. Support for an indefinite duration. The blocks were of an escalating duration a couple of years ago, and now we are back with the same issue. In the absence of demonstrating consistent compliance with core policies when editing Wikipedia articles, this topic ban is unfortunately necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC) There are a number of reasons (which have been brought to my attention since my original comment) as to why I think we can provide Fodbold-fan with another chance. Firstly, Fodbold-fan has promised below on 29 and 30 July 2021 to include a citation for every edit and I think we should offer that user a chance to fulfil that promise. Secondly, I think we should formally review each of the blocks shown in the block log, as a matter of fairness. Thirdly, the edit which led to this proposal was correct, even though it was unsourced, as Fram has outlined below on 30 July 2021. Lastly, Fodbold-fan seems to be make valuable contributions and has in my view demonstrated he is capable of improving his style of editing. Although we know that that not all edits need to be sourced per se, and reversion is a great remedy, I think it is fair to expect Fodbold-fan to fulfil the promise made in any case. Since 2015, multiple users provided Fodbold-fan with feedback on their content not being reliably sourced, content being incorrect, content being improperly sourced, (lack of) use of edit summaries and use of the preview functions. I anticipate concerns will persist unless Fodbold-fan makes more of a consistent effort (which I believe the user is capable of, but as a result of habit, chooses not to). Rather than evaluating every single previous concern, it would be more productive if he proactively takes more care with his edits. This will resolve the risk of contentions arising. I would also reinforce Otr500's comment below dated 30 July 2021, as well as Robby.is.on's comment of the same date. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Okay please last chance, from now on I will add source to every little edit I do. I promise. You will see. Please Fodbold-fan (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How many last chances have you had? GiantSnowman 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I promise this time will be the last. You will see. Fodbold-fan (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The two edits given as justification for the topic ban were unsourced but correct. The edit that Hammersoft couldn't verify was easily verified from e.g. here or here. We should thank them for their edits, not topic ban them. Football project editors mostly do a wonderful job, but have had similar issues in the past with a very heavy-handed approach towards editors who add correct information but don't source it to their liking. While it of course is better if editors add good sources while dding information, it still is better that they improve articles and add correct but unsourced information, than that they don't improve these articles at all. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Fodbold-fan is a very productive editor and has been for a long time. I would find it sad for them to be topic-banned. That said, they need to adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements and their dismissive statements towards sourcing were very disappointing. I'd be willing to give them one "last chance". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If people want to block people for adding unsourced but correct information to BLPs, then perhaps they first need to change the policy? There is no requirement to only add sourced material to BLPs, unsourced additions or changes are welcome if they are uncontroversial (and correct of course). If they are regularly incorrect in what they add, then we should have a discussion about that: but topic banning an editor (and worse, blocking them 3 times already) over what is perfectly acceptable policy-wise is the wrong approach. Instead, GiantSnowman (and others) should stop blocking people for making correct and policy-acceptable edits. Fram (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no excuse to ever add unsourced material to any article, and certainly no such thing as policy-acceptable unsourced edits so long as Verifiability remains a policy. Unsourced edits are worse than vandalism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you are confusing policy-encouraged and policy-acceptable. Unsourced edits are perfectly acceptable. That's why it is verifiability, not verified. Obviously it is much better to add the source directly, instead of waiting for it to be challenged and only then to add one, but that's just best practice, not some absolute requirement which is blockable or which is somewhere policy. And your addition "unsourced edits are worse than vandalism" is just silly. Fram (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced edits are unacceptable. We tolerate vandalism, but it is easily corrected. Unsourced edits often require expert attention. Usually, unless we can identify the original source, they have to be removed, because without the source we cannot verify that they are not a copyvio. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Support per "Comments on change of !vote below": Per Fram and GiantSnowman's "A very good user (at times)". Words of wisdom or consideration: This editor is apparently a subject SPA (certainly not a bad thing), with what seems to be 255 articles created (only a few deleted) and also what seems to be working on 64,000 edits. While I am 100% for sourcing BLP content, if the content was in fact (not seemingly argued against) sourced, then this should count as a warning that getting too close to the last chance line could be dangerous. @Fodbold-fan: You seem to indicate you are through playing with fire. I notice you revert but apparently, add content on some edits ( here). I haven't looked at how it is customarily done but I consider a reversion to be just that. I would think adding content and reference(s) should be noted as such in the edit summary for clarity. In the scheme of Wikipedia creating articles is normally considered a great thing and in that regard, you seem to be doing "great things", however, and especially concerning BLP's, it is dangerous to add content without sourcing when you have been warned. At present, you stand a chance of being topic-banned. Unless you have some alternative area I would think you would want to protect this. I cannot give a good defending argument concerning your block log. I can just add that this "slip up" was the first in over two years and maybe that will be considered. Maybe because there was a source in this instance there could be some saving grace but I hope you do realize the gravity of the situation. Being a prolific editor does not give a pass for disregarding policies and guidelines. Good luck, -- Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding change of !vote made by Otr500 (talk · contribs)) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because there is no rule requiring edits to be sourced. I would support such a rule, but it very pointedly doesn't exist. That's why there's a BLP rule requiring it for controversial edits; because other kinds of edits don't have to be sourced. No sanctions without evidence of actually violating policy. Also, the one diff in the OP was not unsourced; almost all of that edit was sourced by Soccerway, which was already in the article; the only part that wasn't was the "the deal was never made official" language. I actually agree with requiring edits to be sourced but the remedy is reversion not sanctions. If we want to sanction editors for persistently adding unsourced material we first need to add the requirement to policy. Levivich 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Levivich and Fram: WP:BLP requires All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. It does not matter if the edits are "controversial". If the material Fodbold-fan is adding is regularly being challenged then it is unacceptable for them to simply supply sources once it is challenged. They need to be adding the sources when they are adding the material since clearly whatever they are adding is "likely to be challenged". BLP further requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" but that doesn't seem to be the issue here since the problem is Fodbold-fan violating BLP by failing to add sources for material likely to be challenged rather than contentious material. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think "likely to be challenged" means "we have a project where a few of the most active editors will challenge any BLP material if unsourced", but "if the unsourced material you add is unlikely, or negative, or otherwise likely to be challenged for any reason apart from simply being unsourced, then you should source it. Otherwise it is circular reasoning / self-fulfilling prophecy. For me, the issue is not (or less) with someone adding correct but unsourced material (and the editors wanting the topic ban have not indicated that this is about incorrect material at all), but with editors routinely challenging this (and blocking editors!) to uphold their standards which are higher than what enwiki policy requires. Policy should not be misused in this way, the lines you quote are not intended to be a catch-all which can be used to wikilawyer. Otherwise we could better replace them with "all BLP material must be sourced and will be removed if not, and editors failing to do this will be blocked". Fram (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • These edits are not likely to be challenged and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. No one has challenged the accuracy of the two edits diffed here. I am hard pressed to think of an edit that is less likely to be contentious or challenged than what team a pro athlete or coach plays for. This is very easy to verify, "vanilla" stuff. It'd be a whole different story if these were controversial or inaccurate edits. ("Controversial" is shorthand for "contentious or challenged or likely to be challenged.") Levivich 14:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• • • Our rule is that all material is likely to be challenged. Sports web sites have short half lives. After a short time material becomes unverifiable. Adding a reference may help preserve it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

      • "Rules" made up by a local project (or by one member of the project?) are not a reason to sanction or block editors, and the above "infractions" to that ignorable rule are not from such typical sports websites but can be found in news sites as well. Fram (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fram and Levivich. Unsourced material is only bad if 1) it is unsourceable and not merely for being unsourced. Which is to say, if it can be easily shown that a source exists and could be added, that is not a violation of BLP or any other policy. And 2) it is contentious or likely to be challenged. The lack of a source itself is not sufficient grounds for challenging. It must also, in some other way, have a problem, such as being unlikely to be true, harmful or negative in someway, etc. etc. Wikipedia policies are not couched in mandatory "if this, then that" statements, they require nuance and prudence when applying them, and to ban and/or block the OP for this seems heavy handed. I would encourage them to source their edits better (as they should have learned, it makes some people get unnecessarily confrontational when they don't), but unless such information is legitimately contentious, we shouldn't sanction them for not doing so. --Jayron32 15:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  You're forgetting copyvio. Without the source, we can't verify that it was not copied. I've had to remove or rewrite whole articles because they were unsourced. And I'm not forgetting how Fram challenged material that was both properly sourced and that they knew to be true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Copyvio is a complete red herring here. And if you for some reason would like to use this discussion to attack me, then at least have the decency to include some diffs of what you mean. Otherwise please remove the statement per WP:NPA. Fram (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Fram: @Levivich: Rather than just focusing on whether policy permits unsourced edits per se, we probably should also consider the background of issues raised with this editor in particular. My understanding of the history here is that part of the reason this editor was blocked was due to the content being inaccurate and/or (as Jayron32 puts it) unsourceable. While it is clear to me that Fram is saying the diff example at the top of the thread is not one of those occasions (that the content was merely unsourced), and therefore all of you are saying it was permitted under policy, it is unclear to me whether you are all saying this of the previous edits and blocks which you are calling heavy-handed. I mean, there is little point in us saying we shouldn't have sanctioned an editor like this for unsourced content unless we have examined the background of those previous sanctions and the extent of the feedback that the user was provided, as we are not ones for discouraging best practice either. If it turns out that the block log is prejudicial, we can then at least reach a consensus on that and why. If it isn't, then perhaps something else needs to be said for completeness, along the lines of what Otr500 has said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Ncmvocalist GS's blocks of Fodbold-fan were among the blocks discussed at GS's arbcom case, in which both Fram and I participated. Levivich 19:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Fodbold-fan, can you explain why after nearly 64K edits, you're still adding unsourced info to Wikipedia? I find that a bit astonishing. Why in the world don't you just source your edits? You clearly must know how. —valereee (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close of some kind See comments on on change of !vote. I do not see a blockable offense here. I did not look into the past block record just that it exists. An arbcom case was mentioned but no links were provided. I do not know if any blocks were appealed which is an editor's right. I opposed this because sources were found which means in this case there was NOT "unsourcable" content involved. What I do know is there were three blocks for adding "Persistent addition of unsourced content" (by the same Admin) and now this one. I hope this does not evolve into the questioning of these blocks. If ONE was because of adding content that could not be sourced this is potential harm. Future edits can be considered "contentious or challenged" as they have been. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy. Part of that policy is WP:CHALLENGE: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. and Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

In this case, with this editor, it does not seem to be a stretch for any to acknowledge that any unsourced contributions are "likely to be challenged" and need to be sourced especially on a BLP. I believe the editor is aware of this. This means that failure to do so could be inching towards possible claims of tendentious editing. This is evidenced by the This page in a nutshell and the lead of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

Considering these things it is not unreasonable to require that sources be provided by this editor without trying to knit-pick if this may be applicable to all editors. This editor has agreed to this. If this editor", Fodbold-fan (pinging for notification), wishes to contest any of this (is there any undue duress?) I will support such contesting. However, none of us are "court-appointed" so I would like to suggest this be closed as resolved with the editor agreeing to provide sourcing for material, specifically in this topic area. I would like to add a note of caution moving forward with regards to concerns of "heavy-handed" (editor versus editor/Admin involvement) in this area. If "anyone" has deeper concerns that can be addressed separately -- Otr500 (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Otr500: Just on your comment about the block log, the relevant arbcom case finding is here, where the administrator was found to have wrongly blocked other editors for "persistent addition of unsourced content" (in the same period as his last couple of blocks of Fodbod-fan). The evidence in the case included reference to the blocks of Fodbod-fan but the finding did not explicitly name this editor, instead naming two other editors.

To the extent that I have referred to reviewing blocks, they wouldn't be about administrator, as the case already finalised remedies which were relevant to incorrectly blocking editors; rather, the block review would be for the limited purpose of deciding how it would affect our views on editing restrictions for Fodbod-fan specifically (because unlike other discussions, I think it would be wrong for us to take the block log at face value in light of that case).

In the meantime, I agree that this thread can be closed on the basis of the agreement provided by Fodbod-fan. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Unsure why editors are justifying the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs and the (and being generous here) frankly blasé attitude to sourcing requirements, just because I am involved and have blocked the editor in the past (the last time being 3 years ago), despite other editors also raising concerns about edits and other editors having blocked the editor as well over a period of the last 6 years (although admittedly clean for 2). Do you really think so little of me? Cool. GiantSnowman 09:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• GiantSnowman, I certainly do not "think so little of you". In fact, I think it commendable that you "aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people". Two years is a long time. The benefit of the doubt suggests that a warning should be sufficient and this was acknowledged. I believe there is a long-standing consensus that BLP content needs to be sourced. Some may choose to argue, but unless since somehow nullified, a 2010 Arbitration Committee motion passed that included: That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources. WP:BLPREMOVE (#1) includes "unsourced or poorly sourced" and gives latitude for an involved Admin to block: Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. This is for "clear cases" and includes provisions for "less clear cases". I think the evidence suggests that if the subject does violate the BLP content sourcing policy requirement again that more than a topic ban be considered. What can be considered tendentious editing? "Expecting others to find sources for your own statements" and "This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals". -- Otr500 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I would add that it appears that Fodbod-fan is complying with the promise made in this thread, but if issues persist, any proposal for editing restrictions can promptly be revisited at that point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Otr500 and Ncmvocalist: except of course edits like this yesterday - no source provided for the changes, no edit summary to explain the changes, no indication as to why the changes are correct etc. GiantSnowman 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments on change of !vote: I reverted the content as unsupported and left talk page comments. I am flabbergasted, to say the least. Part of my defense of this editor, as well as some others commenting above, is the two-year lapse and the promises. That was rendered null and void with the addition of unsupported content while this ANI was ongoing. My assumption of good faith has been tainted. The editor in question may have set fire to the "rope" offered. This seems to cross flagrant disregard in leaps and bounds. The editor has commented "Dude, please stop your harassment. I don't have time to put sources in every single article, but if you look it up, you see that my edits is legit. You know me by now too. Otherwise, I will quit editing." This is clearly a stance of "I will not add sources" (even though I promised) because it is other people's job to verify my added content.

There may be two camps on a necessity to add sources because some feel it is alright if the source is out there somewhere. I do believe there is evidence that expecting sourcing, backed by policy, can be required. The above assumption of good faith would be that the content was verifiable. This goes deeper towards tendentious editing by disruption: "Examples of disruptive editing" #1, #2 (fails to cite sources), #4, and #5, along with "Point-illustrating" and Failure or refusal to "get the point".

I now Support (rationale per above !vote) a "topic ban" but also suggest this be considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If the editor does not quit as indicated that editor can simply bring these editing habits elsewhere. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your revert. I don't know why you (and GS) think this edit was unsourced. It's sourced to Soccerway, which is already cited in the article. Levivich 13:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Why did FF not simply add an edit summary saying 'as per Soccerway' in that case? wP:CIR. GiantSnowman 14:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Or look at this edit, which uses this website as a source (in the edit summary only, not the article, but whatever). The changes to the article are to update the Waitakere United stats, add playing for Forrest Hill Milford United (no stats), and add playing for Northern Rovers (with stats added). The only thing the 'reference' supports is this player playing one game in May 2021 for Northern Rovers, and that's it - nothing about Waitakere United stats, nothing about Forrest Hill Milford United, and nothing about Northern Rovers stats. Is that acceptable? GiantSnowman 14:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As to your first question, I could have sworn we had this conversation two years ago and it went like this: yes, edit summaries are useful; no, we don't revert or sanction editors for lack of edit summaries; plus it's bloody obvious that the edit was updating stats that were already referenced to Soccerway, plus plus you in particular of all people know this. Your view that lack of edit summaries = CIR does not have consensus. Or to put it another way, while ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries, if I have to choose between the two, I'd rather have an editor update articles (accurately, per sources already cited) without an edit summary than not have the editor update the article at all. You really have to accept that this is the consensus, even if you disagree with it. I would support a rule requiring edit summaries, but first we get consensus for that requirement, before we sanction anyone for violating it.

As to your second question/edit, everything in this edit was sourced to a source already cited in the article, National Football Teams. The only thing that wasn't sourced by NFT (Northern Rovers) is sourced to the Northern Rovers website source. So it's all sourced as far as I can tell (and accurate). Levivich 14:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman, this is indeed the root cause of the Arbcom case of two years ago revisited: you (and a few others) owning football articles way too aggressively, and imposing your rules on other editors (but, apparently, both then and now, a lot less strictly on yourself). Would it have been better if Fotbold-fan had used the edit summary "quick clean" to make their edits? Or is this fundamentally the same as what you are trying to get then topic banned for, now that you are no longer allowed to block them over it (but still use those bad blocks as justification of the topic ban now)? Or this? Fram (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Again - a huge difference between content sourced to an in-line reference and an editor using one of many external links and asking us to try and work out which one. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Firstly, you might want to consider how the use of the word "us" in your sentence sounds in the context of Wikipedia's policy on ownership of content, which Fram referenced immediately before your comment. Secondly, higher doses of assuming good faith can be helpful in understanding that the content change is more constructive than not. If the content was actually inaccurate or actually unverifiable, then that is when you have something to be concerned about. Just my 2 cents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Man, GS, Fram's comment prompted me to take a look at your recent contribs. Look at these reverts, each of which you wrote in the edit summary "no source," but each of which was sourced by a source already in the article, Soccerway: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] (all of these have since been reinstated). The worst part is, these are all the winners of major championships. You know this is sourced to Soccerway! You're just being WP:POINTy by reverting this as "unsourced" when you damn well know that they are in fact sourced. You know because this is one of the things that was brought up at the arbcom case. You've got to stop doing this.

  Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "stats per Soccerway": [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]. These are exactly the same as the edit you complain about, except that you use an edit summary "stats per Soccerway." Well, the omission of that edit summary doesn't make it "unsourced" and isn't grounds for reverting an edit. That why I say you know that these stats-updates are sourced by Soccerway and that Soccerway is already in these articles, because you do the same type of work, updating statistics.

  Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "clean up": [64] [65] [66]. These, again, are the same types of edits as what you're complaining about: they are sourced to a source already in the article, but you don't say that in your edit summary. There is no functional difference between an edit summary "clean up" and a blank edit summary. You have zero grounds for complaint here.

  What really drives me nuts about this, from one content editor to another, is that you're totally losing sight of the point of what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. I mean I'm a bit besides myself that you took out correct, relevant, up-to-date, sourced information (that an athlete won a championship) because you've had this years-long fued with some editors over edit summaries. Talk about putting your own needs above the needs of our readers! Come on, man. See the light here. Don't corrupt our articles because you're mad an editor for not using edit summaries. Levivich 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Funny that you use one Jonathan Lewis diff, but not the one where I managed to find a source for the content. Funny that you say "these edits have been reinstated", but not "they have been reinstated after sources were found and added".

For the avoidance of doubt, I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from. Contrary to what you say there is a huge difference between that and not using any edit summary and it's a pity you can't see that.

You clearly haven't been reviewing my contribs properly, because in this one I clearlyy add a reference, and in the other clean up ones I am merely updating/cleaning the article that has already been sourced in-line - not using an EL and making other editors guess where the info is from.

Oh there's no feud or anything like this, please don't ABF. Just a desire from me to improve Wikipedia - including sourcing content about BLPs!!! It's s shame that yours and Fram's hatred views towards me colour your vision. Would you be as defensive if any other editor had raised concerns about unsourced content being added to to BLPs? Absolutely not. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It was never unsourced. It was always sourced to Soccerway or National Football Teams, two of the standard sourced used in footy articles for stats. You keep saying "unsourced" but that's just not true. You say "I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from," but above I linked to several diffs where you, yourself, updated stats with the edit summary "clean up," which does not indicate exactly where the information was coming from. I don't hate you but I am concerned about how you've been treating some editors, like Fobold Fan, for years. I'm also concerned that you refuse to grapple with certain truths, like: the sources for the edits were in the article when the edits were made; you were previously sanctioned by arbcom in part for this; you made articles worse (removing that an athlete won a championship) over this. To me, these are serious issues and I'd like you to pay attention to them. Like, agree to WP:Drop the stick. Levivich 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Last thing on this because I have better things to do with my time (like, I don't know, improve and add references to BLPs!!!) than argue with Fram and Levivich. But - it is possible, and it wouldn't kill you - to say both "hey, GS, why not AGF a bit more" and "hey, FF, why not use edit summaries or try to make it clearer why you are making changes and where your information has come from". The two are not mutually exclusive. See ya. GiantSnowman 17:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I said edit summaries are useful and ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries and I would support a rule requiring edit summaries. Of course I think FF and everyone else should use edit summaries. But that wasn't what this thread was about when you opened it: you only mentioned unsourced info in BLPs. Would it kill you to admit the info was in fact sourced? Would it kill you to admit you do the same thing (update stats without saying what the source is in an edit summary)? It doesn't matter to me if you admit it or not, but it does matter to me that you stop reverting people for adding information without a source when the source is already in the article. Levivich 18:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about it, where is the evidence that the transfer was present in the external link (Soccerway etc.) at the time FF's edit was made? i.e. where is the evidence that the external link had already updated to reflect the transfer and that therefore is the source used? Sometimes they take a day or two. Interesting. That is all. GiantSnowman 18:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Concur with GiantSnowman. It's clear there's no consensus here, and there's reason not to enact a topic ban. But, neither should we simply declare there is no problem and move on. A clear message needs to be given to FF that their behavior is not what we expect. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• @GiantSnowman: Ok, let's put your differences aside and consider this in a different light. We now know this is an instance of content arising from an existing source; the bizarre fact that it was cited under "external links" prior to Fodbold-fan editing the article doesn't mean the article was better prior to Fodbold-fan's edit. Sometimes articles will have a handful (or more) of sources cited in the entire article - with all of those sources seemingly attributed to one particular line in an article, when in fact they form the basis of other information in an article. That doesn't mean an update should be reverted automatically or is somehow less beneficial.
• From experience, we all know for a fact that many unregistered accounts (fans of football or otherwise) will take the liberty of updating information without providing an in-line citation, whether within the text or in an edit summary. However, if the information is accurate, verifiable, compliant with NPOV etc, it is implicitly accepted that update is undoubtedly an improvement to the project even if policy might allow a revert. While we might like the content to be further updated so that external links are specifically listed under references, or for each update to be attributed to a separate in-line text citation, that is not always necessary at that point by the editor who made an update (noting the article was originally sitting like that for who knows how long). Given that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the standard you are expecting seems to be higher than what the project requires sometimes. That higher standard you would like in articles can be a good thing if it is used constructively, but forcing it on others can be offensive, disruptive or harmful.
• Another way to think about it is that not all editors are good at (or enjoy) copyediting, referencing and so forth. Fodbold-fan is an editor who clearly enjoys updating the accuracy of Wikipedia articles on football(ers) based on verifiable information; that is the earlier step of improvement specifically. The next level of improvement might be increasing in-line citations to the source or moving the sources to a references section or copyediting or building more content just as Fodbold-fan did. That next level of improvement can be boldly completed by you or any other editor too.
• If you are saying Fodbold-fan is not abiding by an agreement and the content is inaccurate and/or unverifiable (or something along those lines), restrictions might need to be considered. But the idea of sanctioning an editor for not completing the next level of improvement doesn't sit right with me; does it really sit right with you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Coming back just because I have been pinged - FF has admitted they messed up, asked for a final chance, and made a concerted effort to improve (even if it is still, in my eyes, not good enough). However, based on everything, a topic ban is probably not suitable at this time. But, as Hammersoft says, other editors pretending there is nothing at all amiss with FF's edits is extremely damaging. GiantSnowman 18:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Or alternatively, a good editor (who could improve some of their editing habits) was threatened with a topic ban by the admin who already blocked them incorrectly three times, panicked (understandably) and promised whatever was wanted to avoid the fate that surely seemed to await them. They perhaps have since learned that the demands made by that admin were unreasonable and not supported by everyone, and that said admin already got into trouble for similar actions in the past (including with this very editor), and finally that said admin shows a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality in this regard. And no, this is not "hatred" for Giantsnowman, but serious disappointment that an otherwise good admin and editor has such a large blind spot when it comes to this, and that the Arbcom case, while being followed to the letter, has not changed anything in their view on the underlying issues, which are not seen as sanctionable by many editors (nor by policy). They believe that the football project has some (presumably unwritten) rules beyond policy ("everything is likely to be challenged", "young players are kept even when they have no GNG notability, just in case they later become notable") which overrule general Wikipedia-wide consensus, and that mistaken belief needs to be discarded. Fram (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Debresser

I changed the short description in COVID-19 pandemic in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) so that it does not repeat the title of the article. User Debresser (talk · contribs · block user) started reverting me over and over again, demanding that I first establish a consensus, which is ridiculous because the change I made is minor and non-controversial. Also, with his latest edits there, he reverted not only me but another editor as well, without explanation: link. I asked for help at WT:SHORTDESC and the feedback there basically confirmed my point. It is unacceptable to allow this user to waste so much of other peoples' time and effort to make edits as obvious as mine was. He is banned in the Palestine–Israel topic-area, and is constantly being blocked for his edit-warring. Debresser is polluting other users' editing with his lack of judgement and WP:OWN, and should be blocked for good. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If your edit is reverted, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for inclusion. Did you start a talk page discussion?I don’t see any relevance in this complaint to the IP topic. You’ve reverted it at least 4 times now. You should start a discussion before you get blocked for edit warring. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It's an abuse of guidelines to require discussion before every edit. There were no good reason to revert it or demand consensus, and that's why his history of sanctions is relevant – he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason to revert it, it would seem to me, was that the version was stable before you arrived. If your edit is so obviously superior, then gaining consensus should be a breeze. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not If only two editors have weighed in, and they disagree...then there is no consensus for the change, and the existing text is understood to represent consensus. Why haven't you followed WP:ONUS and WP:BRD by initiating a talkpage discussion to gain consensus for your disputed edit? It is not an abuse of guidelines to follow guidelines. Bringing this to ANI when you are the one edit warring in your preferred change, primarily complaining about unrelated events in the other editor's past, is a bad idea. Grandpallama (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Triggerhippie4, this page falls under WP:COVIDDS. Please exercise greater caution and do not edit war. Further, I take a dim view of you trying to browbeat Debresser with their sanctions history to win over a content dispute — and, as it happens, I'm actually the admin who sanctioned Debresser, for whatever that's worth (something, I'd reckon). El_C 05:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  And he even blocked me once, for whatever that's worth. :P EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, blocking EEng is a right of passage for admins... El_C 06:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Gah, Right of passage →Rite of passage, I can't spell. Though EEng probably self-identifies as a ship now (no Poop deck jokes, please!). El_C 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I gotta say something else. Triggerhippie4, I'm a bit shocked that an editor of your experience would revert a contending version over a longstanding one with an edit summary that reads: There is no consensus for your revision. It's your version that's new, Debresser's version already enjoyed consensus, at the very least loosely, via WP:SILENCE. You can't tell him that his version has no consensus when yours has even less! El_C 05:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

And I gotta say something else too. This is an ANI thread over a short desc? REALY??? EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

While it would've been better for Triggerhippie4 to open a talk discussion, I agree that such minor non controversial changes don't always require for editors to talk. Moreover, they already asked about the change in the shortdesc, and the responders pretty much agreed with them. With that being said Triggerhippie4, if you get reverted multiple times, at that point it's probably better to open a discussion as clearly the user disagrees with you and they'll be right to point out WP:ONUS (even if you think it wastes everyones time and the change is minor). Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Triggerhippie4, browbeating Debresser over their sanctions history to win a content dispute is WP:BLACKSHEEP. We have seen this kind of thing before. Please don’t. Tinybubi (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, not interesting. El_C 11:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Is my reply at all necessary here? I agree with everything that has been said, but will happily repeat those points, and would like to add a few things:

1. Triggerhippie4 does not understand or refuses to accept that he is the one who has to gain consensus for his edits (as I pointed out to him multiple times), and this has been so for as long as I have known him here;
2. it takes two to edit war, and since Triggerhippie4's first reaction to a revert is, and has always been, to simply repeat his edit, he will regularly be in conflict with other editors;
3. trying to make another editor look bad is not nice (but please rest assured that I hold a very dim view of Triggerhippie4 as well, based on precisely the things that are being held against him here);
4. this is not really the kind of subject to take to WP:ANI;
5. there is a discussion on the talkpage, which seems to be going his way, and I have not reverted since, so opening this thread at that stage was being vindictive and I do not appreciate it at all;

Debresser (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, that is not an ideal reply – it seems to focus entirely on the actions of another editor without any recognition of your own distinctly sub-optimal behaviour. What exactly do we have to do at this point to stop you edit-warring, once and for all? You've been warned, you've been blocked, but you just . won't . stop. Do you not understand that edit-warring is a waste of everybody's time, and actively harms the encyclopaedia by eroding editor goodwill? Edit-warring over such trivial detail as this is particularly pointless and toxic.

Here's a proposal: you agree to a one-revert-per-month restriction on any page anywhere in the project (with the usual exceptions for pure vandalism, serious WP:BLP violations, blatant copyright violation etc); if after – say – a year you have not broken that restriction it can be lightened to, say, one revert per week. Could you do that, do you think? The only alternative I can think of is to seek consensus here for a community-imposed 0RR restriction. El_C, other editors: could this work, if Debresser agrees?

Triggerhippie4, you've taken a good deal of flak above, and I'm not going to add to that. But please read my comments about edit-warring, they apply to you too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers Not going to happen. I am allowed to revert to a consensus version. I am allowed to behave sub-optimal. I broke no rules. I hold the higher moral ground here, as the one protecting the page from aggressive non-consensus edits, and I don't believe you are seriously proposing to punish me for that. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Boomerang indeff Triggerhippie4

Since Triggerhippie4 suggested a permanent block for Debresser for purposes of browbeating, he should face his own proposed sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.151.38 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that he needs a stern warning that automatically undoing reverts of his edits is not going to be tolerated any longer. This was by far not the first time. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be compared to calling the police with a fraudulent report. There are serious consequences for trying to falsely accuse someone of a crime, besides for wasting the police's time. I believe this is a similar situation in which Triggerhippie4 fraudulently reported Debresser on ANI, as noted by many users above, therefore this should have serious consequences besides letting him go with just a warning which is effectively a slap on the wrist.155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Liz is trying to intimidate and discourage me from doing admin work

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

---

Please see the message on my talk page. This is the second time Liz has tried to discourage me from doing admin work because she is claiming certain areas are "hers" and others are "mine". She had emailed me the first time in late June with the same type of discouraging and hurtful message, but I did not reply to the email because thought it ridiculous. When I started working in AFD or RFD a few months ago, not once was I ever been discouraged from regulars at those venues from working there, nor was I told to keep to my regular areas because those areas are "theirs". Conversely, I did not take such an approach to others who have started working at AFD as of late, which has left me few discussions for me to close as of late. That's how the project works. I can go do other admin work. However, the more admin work I do, the more she's trying to back me into a corner of venues she deems are "mine". Is the aim to bully me off the project so she can claim all these areas as "hers"? This approach has been WP:UNCIVIL, uncongenial, and hostile. Administrators should not be acting in this manner and it is incredibly unbecoming of someone in her position. ✗plicit 05:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Explicit: Have you seen Liz act territorially toward other admins? If this is not an isolated incident, that may warrant an Arbcom case, which is the only thread that can desysop for misconduct. I don't see any prior ANI threads about you nor Liz, aside from honest mistakes and WP:BOOMERANG threads. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: I have no knowledge of her prior conduct with other admins. However, looking through my emails, I realized I have another one sent by Liz in December 2019. I will not reveal its contents due to the private nature of the correspondence, but I imagine that such inimical communication with other admins have also occurred off-wiki. ✗plicit 06:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Bumping into another admin while doing work is very normal. For AfD's you can use the afd closing template to put the afd on hold while working on it. The message certainly seems unreasonable.

It certainly seems odd as I am sure any admin who has done any significant work has encounters conflicts regularly. Not sure why you are being scolded for doing work. I don't think I have seen this from an admin in 15+ years working here.

I don't see this being actionable at this point, but should it turn into a documented pattern then at the very least a trouting may be in order. Admins don't own areas of Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, while I certainly see how the message could be seen as discouraging, I think the term intimidating is a bit of a stretch. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

If another admin left me a message like that, I'd have a chat with them about how we could avoid treading on each other"s toes. I don't see it as discouraging at all, certainly not intimidating. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC and Girth Summit: I disagree. In response to overlapping in admin tasks, her response is, "I don't ever touch the daily image deletions because that's an area you regularly do but maybe the situation has changed." Aside from being blatantly untrue—she has done so several times at CAT:ORFU one minute ahead of schedule to "beat" me if one of the daily categories contained over 100 files—this essentially translates to, "If you don't stop encroaching on my areas, I'll encroach on yours." This is a retaliatory approach intended to escalate the situation. As I said in my response on my talk page, I did not see anyone working in those areas at the time I loaded the pages (Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages and empty categories from Category:Monthly clean-up category (Clean-up categories) counter)—it was a sea of blue links that needed to be deleted. ✗plicit 08:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Explicit, I don't read it like that at all. I don't know the history between you, or what was in emails you've exchanged, but I really struggle to read it in the way you describe above. Again, why don't you just talk to her and find out what the problem is? Girth Summit _(blether) 08:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Please don't suggest such a weird escalation. If you have no knowledge of Liz and don't want to take the time to see if mentioning Arbcom is appropriate at this stage, don't comment at all.

@Explicit: The thought of Liz sending someone a hurtful message is very hard to swallow. The message at User talk:Explicit#Deleting pages is totally innocent and in no way is a claim regarding what is "hers". Why not accept that what Liz said is how she saw it, namely that the conflicts were "very frustrating". I don't know how you might "see an admin working on an area" in order to temporarily avoid interrupting their work but I do know that the best response would be to say what you did ("no work had begun") and ask how you could avoid interruption. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I don't wish to quote the private email, but the "your area is yours and mine is mine" sentiment was much more apparent there. I'll say this very vaguely (because it's from the email), but she told me to stop tagging (not delete, tag) certain pages for deletion because she does it, even though I tagged these pages for deletion once during a timespan where she is not usually online. It was impossible to run into each other. In my experience, I bump into admins all the time at CAT:SD, WP:PRODSUM, AFD, MFD, RFD, etc, regardless of the time of day. Even so, I have never been discouraged by another administrator from doing admin tasks regardless of how many times we bump into each other. Don't delete this, don't tag that. How many restrictions that she imposes do I need to follow? ✗plicit 08:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Liz's talkpage note in Explicit's diff looks perfectly fine to me. We have Template:Doing for the precise purpose of alerting other users to not trip over work that you have in progress, though I don't know whether it would apply to Liz's working on that category or whatever it was. That part of the complaint is bogus. The remaining part says Liz sent Explicit some email, that ANI of course can't act upon without seeing it.

Explicit, have you discussed this with Liz before posting here? That appears to no longer be formally required, but it's still a good idea if you can do it, and I don't see anything stopping you. I don't see anything recent on Liz's talk page from you besides the notification of this ANI. Earlier (29 June), there was an exchange where Liz accidentally reverted a closure of yours, and acknowledged and apologized for the error when you asked what had happened. My tentative impression is that this ANI is an overreaction to another mixup, that can be handled with a bit more coordination, combined with AGF and tolerance of mistakes.

Conclusion: I think this ANI is premature and you should first discuss the issue with Liz on her talkpage. If that doesn't resolve things, then as long as the matter still turns on this undisclosed email, you have to ask her permission to post it and then do so so that ANI can look into it. If permission is not forthcoming, then maybe the two of you could agree to some kind of mediation in private. If that isn't acceptable to both of you, then I think you have to ask arbcom or an arbcom member to look into it, since they are allowed to see private info of this type. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• The talk page note does not look perfectly fine to me. It wasn't very nice. But taking it to ANI is an overreaction. "Bullying" and "intimidation" are a stretch. Explicit: someone was rude to you. Once. (Twice in two months/three times in two years, if we count the email.) Oh no. Move on. This isn't something you need to be taking up other editors' time over. Levivich 10:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Since we don’t know the content of private emails, I think it’s impossible to say that Explicit is or isn’t overreacting / does or doesn’t have valid cause to feel intimidated. Can’t really scold someone for bringing a complaint to ANI rather than letting a dispute between admins build up. ProcSock (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    • There are other options aside from "bring a complaint to ANI" and "let a dispute build up," such as "talk to Liz," as has been suggested above. Levivich 11:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Even if so, I think it's quite a *weird* message to send anyone, tbh. Things happen and there is no right of way when it comes to editing. Yes, it was escalated to ANI (way too hasty) and yes, there are some bad suggestions here but still doesn't take away the cause of the problem itself, best would be to wait for Liz to clarify on the OP's talk page, I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Am I the only one that thinks "I did not reply to the email because [I] thought it ridiculous." is never an acceptable course of action in the context of admin-to-admin communication? 78.28.44.31 (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  BTW, Special:Contributions/Liz shows that the editor's been happily editing, completely uninterested in responding to this thread. Bad vibes all around. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I was happily editing but I was unaware of this discussion. I SHOULD have been aware as there was a notification on my talk page but I hadn't looked at my talk page today until now when I saw Cullen left a message for me and I read it. Some days I only look at my talk page once a day and respond at that time to any messages left there. Not the best habit, I'll admit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Liz's message was a little bit terse, but it's a quite a stretch for the OP to theorize that Liz is trying to intimidate them off the site. Seems to me that Liz is just upset because she was working on a category and someone (from her point of view) got in the way. You don't have to agree with her message, but it was pretty easy to understand. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) The talk page message is certainly strange, but I wouldn't consider it "harassing" unless there's a pattern of behavior. It's unclear to me how anyone is supposed to "see an admin working on an area". From the logs, it looks like this is referring to things like clearing the WP:G7 queue, and there is absolutely no reason to object to more admins doing that. Hopefully Liz will provide a statement. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• When I read that message, I sense frustration and annoyance, not intimidation and discouragement.—S Marshall T/C 21:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Not a great message or conducive to a cooperative editing environment. Liz could you expand on what you were trying to say there? I'm not seeing need for action yet, but maybe just a don't do that again. PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• From what I observe the message wasn’t in any form intimidating, rather it comes off as Liz just being a tad bit frustrated at that point in time. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sorry to be replying to this discussion so late but I didn't notice the ANI message on my talk page until Cullen brought it to my attention. I am pretty bad at noticing pings, it's the one area where I think I need to improve.

I'm finding it difficult to accept the view that I was trying to intimidate Explicit who has been on Wikipedia probably twice as long as I have and been an admin much longer than me. But you often don't know how things will be perceived.

I was very frustrated when I left that message. If you are seeking an explanation, well, there are often different tasks people often undertake on Wikipedia on a regular basis. If you look over a person's contributions and logs, you might see a regular repetition of edits and admin tasks in certain areas. For example, I usually tag empty categories and delete many of them. Explicit usually deletes most of the CSD-tagged files at exactly 00:00 UTC every day. Other admins regularly close TFD discussions or AFD discussions. Because it's usually Explicit & I who work with expiring stale drafts, I know his schedule and when he'll start working on them and he probably knows mine as well. That's not creepy, it's just that people have habits but no one "owns" an activity. My personal approach is unless it's an area that I've done work in, I usually give other admins and editors a lot of space around activities I can see that they normally look after. That's not written down in policy, I just think that it just helps thing work harmoniously here so we aren't all working at cross-purposes or stepping on each other's toes.

My problem yesterday was not that I owned an activity but that twice I was in the middle doing of an admin task, deleting end-of-July empty maintenance categories and later reviewing orphaned talk pages and Explicit appeared while I was working and did a batch delete of the remainder of the pages while I was reviewing them. It was a little jarring because I was in the middle of handling these tasks. It would be like if an AFC reviewer was reviewing a draft and while they were posting their comments, another reviewer posted their rejection or acceptance, or an admin was writing up a closing comment for a contentious AFD and found that another admin had closed it while they were writing it up. Not a colossal mistake, everyone is doing what they are supposed to, just a little collision. Unfortunately, I reacted to this collision in an emotional way probably because it was twice in a couple of hours with the same person. This has happened to me before with Explicit because we can work reviewing the same pages but for me it's never happened before with another administrator.

My message was not meant to be a threat but I was a little exasperated and I certainly didn't expect it to result in an ANI discussion. My intent was simply to say, if you are an admin who works a lot with deletion, as Explicit does, and you see that half a page of titles is being reviewed or processed, just let the working admin finish what they are doing. Seeing that another admin is at work on a list is admittedly harder to see when you utilize Twinkle's batch delete. But that is all I intended to say with my message and I'm sorry if it came across as less than diplomatic, as I try to be. I think the solution is for Explicit and I to give each other some extra space which I was planning to do when he comes back to work on Wikipedia soon. I'm sorry, Explicit. If other editors have issues with me, please bring them to my talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• I usually view admin action conflicts as a cause for celebration and laughs, though I'm getting the sense that the scope of the admin action conflicts here is of a more extensive nature than normally, involving many pages. Of course, it's generally good to optimize parallel workings to avoid it. I know that on among us regulars at RfPP, there's an unspoken rule: if someone is working the list from the bottom, you go from the top (and vice versa). Then, when you meet in the middle: celebration! El_C 22:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Question from a non-admin: How does one know something is being reviewed or processed by another admin? I get what El C is saying above from an RfPP perspective. Is it same with deletion categories? S0091 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• There are templates that can be used to mark a page as under review. If you don't use them then you should not be surprised if someone else handles it while you are still working on it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This honestly sounds like a communication issue. Perhaps in the future users who are working on an entire page (?) of stuff should put up a template (like {{in use}}) so that no toes are stepped on? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Since Explicit & I have returned to our regular activities over the past day, maybe we can give each other more room in admin areas and this situation is no longer an emergency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Liz: Does this mean you're ready to accept that all admin tasks are available strictly on a first-come-first-served basis and that nobody is entitled to claim exclusive access to any of these tasks? In particular, are you ready to acknowledge that 1) Explicit is under no obligation to track what editing you're currently engaging in and plan his own editing around it, and that 2) it was unreasonable of you to expect him to do so? 78.28.44.31 (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I believe this should be closed already as I view this as a communication problem, interpreting tone over text is subjective and can be a quite daunting task (if you intend to internalize what is being said to you and analyze it meticulously to correctly “interpret it” in the manner it was intended by the editor). The manner or tone in which Liz made the comment is open to diverse interpretations in which we see now that it was wrongly misinterpreted by the OP Explicit (whom I’ve worked with) alongside Liz and Fastily in G13 eligibles if they had opted to discuss with Liz extensively other than this ANI, I believe it would have been less controversial and more productive. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• According to the past 3 months of adminstats, Liz and Explicit lead the admin corps in terms of actions. At this level, it's very difficult to avoid competitive feelings (believe me, I would know). My advice to both parties: this statistic is ultimately meaningless, we're all on the same team here. -FASTILY 23:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:RogueShanghai

Hello,

This editor has a history of disruptive and clearly bias edits pertaining to the Nicki Minaj article, available for all to see from the user's talk page. This editor somehow is convinced that copying an article word for word from a different online encyclopedia (Britannica) is a reliable source. Persistently disputing and edit warring with several users on various subjects of the article, and refusing to accept the fact (in this instance) that actress is not notable to the career fame of the article subject enough to lead.

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]

ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

How did I copy the article word for word? I said that the Britannica encyclopedia stated that she was an actress, and we as another online encyclopedia should do the same. You seem to make no coherent sense of anything whatsoever. Blessings and peace. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 11:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Also at AN3, I guess: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:RogueShanghai_reported_by_User:ChicagoWikiEditor_(Result:_). ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 11:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: If what I wrote does not make coherent sense to you, then there is clearly a problem with your reading comprehension because it is there in plain grammatically correct English to be understood. You are proposing a 1:1 of another encyclopedias lead and called that a "source", even attempting to include "television personality" (before you were shut down) because "thats what it says on Britannica". This is all clearly viewable in the edit summaries above. Maybe you should get some sleep? It appears you've been up several hours, maybe even a full day edit warring this page. Quite a way to spend your Saturday. If Nicki Minaj the rapper is an actor then so is Shaquille o'neal, Eminem, and Dr Dre, right? They've had far more significant careers in film yet there is a consensus among editors that these are not article leading titles. Same applies for Nicki Minaj ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPA. And actually, also, yes. If they've had careers in film I see no issue with Eminem and Shaq being labeled with careers in acting. Minaj went to a straight up acting high school and said that she originally intended to be an actress instead of a rapper, so for you to completely discredit that on the basis of what you think, that is not encyclopedic. Your edit summaries prove this:

> "Not an actress" [70]

> "There isn’t a source in the world that will justify labeling Nicky Minaj the rapper as an actress" [71]

> "She is not notable for being an actress" [72]

And also, the way I spend my damn weekends is none of your business. I don't see why you needed to bring that up. Minaj is notable for acting, she was straight up in a supporting role in The Other Woman, she went to acting school in high school, etc. You're completely misrepresenting her on the basis of YOUR opinion. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 19:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: You ought to take the time to learn how and use the reply feature. And I didn't ask you about your weekends, I just noticed they sucked, and that's related to your activity on here, not a genuine concern for your weekend. Moreover the question about Shaq, Em, and Dr Dre was rhetorical. Did you read the whole thing? Her acting in high school and prior ambitions are irrelevant to her career fame, so that is pointless to mention. If I opened an Rfc on talk page it would likely be almost unanimous. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note for any reviewing admins: I don't know anything about this particular case. However, very recently, ChicagoWikiEditor told FMSky in this talk page section that "Clearly being a child is your problem" and "Relax, little boy... Gold star for trying though. Now run along unless you're going to be constructive." He went to tell me in this edit summary: "You clearly have no idea what you are talking about" directed at me. In this talk page section, he said "For benefit of simpletons like yourself", also directed at me, and then threatened with this: "If you or anyone else feels like you can continue to revert the article then that's on you. I'll see you at the admins board afterwards." I was the one trying to discuss, and being civil, but in the face of those attacks I simply started an RfC because I didn't feel like trying to talk to him anymore would be productive. I think all of that is relevant when reading this current issue. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I would've been fine discussing this on the talk page if it weren't for his openly hostile and rude nature, and continuing to assert that Minaj is not an actress seemingly only because he thinks so despite two linked sources saying she is an actress. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 03:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment the user RogueShanghai has a clear problem of ownership with the mentioned article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment RogueShanghai is clearly a big fan of Minaj and is very clearly trying to peacock the article whilst displaying severe WP:OWN issues; especially given the response above I would suggest a partial block from the article. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment RogueShanghai seems to enjoy calling out personal attacks as much as they do making them. Examples include:
  • What does my personal life and the fanbases that I am in have to do with any of my editing work? WP:NPA.[73]
  • He's also seemed to personally attack me [...] when there's no place for personal attacks here, going as far as to misgender me, whether intentionally or unintentionally.[74]
  • Hopefully you'll stop [...] acting quite immature and petty for someone who's supposed to be in their 20s.[75]
  • I don't think someone who is a fan of someone who seems to use multiple cowriters for her bars can speak on Doja Cat.[76]
  • You're being so weird, there is literally no reason to [...] keep reverting the image. Maybe a spambot?[77] KyleJoan^talk 09:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Both ChicagoWikiEditor and RogueShanghai are clearly way over the line in their day-to-day communication styles. Sanctions or restrictions are needed because it seems both of them are well aware of NPA/ANI/3RR but see behavioural policies and guidelines only as a way to threaten others rather than as a series of steps we all need to take to make sure that everybody who volunteers their time and effort here feels comfortable. Unless our behavioural PAGs are actually enforced, then these editors are correct that they exist only as weapons to be rude to others with. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • After this past discussion, will this finally have a solution? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

2a00:23c7:5884:5a01:358c:3157:3bcc:b83b/44

2a00:23c7:5884:5a01:358c:3157:3bcc:b83b/44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I was wondering if someone can block for a while this Glasgow-based IP-range (calculated by me by combining five different IPV6 by using this tool). The user is persistently targeting several articles relating mostly to ancient Egypt, with edits ranging from inserting/changing dates, adding purely speculative family relationships, or other personal deductions, all devoid of reliable sources and/or in clear disagreement with already existing ones. You may find that reaching the warning limit is pretty useless with such a plethora of IPs. Lone-078 (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment A link to their contribs list was added to the top of this report. Looks like trouble is afoot; AGF violation against Apokryltaros (talk · contribs) after they had reverted their edits. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment I refrained from re-reverting partly to avoid edit-warring, and partly because I've dealt with this persistent, sanctimonious editor before, and decided to wait until it gets a rangeblock.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I care not. I'm reverting as many edits as I can. It's at least since April that this individual has been polluting this encyclopedia with lies on a daily basis. People like that make me sick. Lone-078 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic-based aspersions and labelling

• I would still ask all respectful editors (especially those of Armenian origin) to keep yourselves objective and not pour out your anger to the pages of Wikipedia.
• I just wanted to express my protest on the fact that some of the heavy editors to this article (many of which turn out to be Armenians - just claiming obvious fact!) may be biased towards the subject of this article

As well as labelling a self-identified Kurdish editor as Armenian and blind-reverting their edits on numerous articles with summaries such as:

• restoring original preview to the article before destructive edits of an Armenian sockpuppet user
• restoring native Turkic name to the article (previously was removed by an Armenian sockpuppet)

User seems not here to build an encyclopedia. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

forgot to link them, Mastersun25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Did not mean to offend anyone. I reverted some of the edits of the reported used that seemed to be very disruptive to me. Ironically, the banned user accused me of sockpuppetting, turned out to be sockpuppet himself. Now this user accuses me of ethnic bias, having edit history of a typical xenophobe. [78] [79] [80]. Please respectful editors pay attention to this fact as well. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the above mentioned blocked user pretended to be Kurdish, which is also obvious if you visit his edit history page as well as his other accounts. I want to say one more time that my recent edits were not at all disruptive and had no other aim than to restore a NPOV versions of some articles that were previously edited by a banned user who disruptively pushed his POVs. I also did not violate any of Wikipedia's rules. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mastersun25, it doesn't matter what a user's ethnicity is. It only matters what the edits are. Please stop referring to editors' ethnicity, ever. You are new here, so you may not realize that this is considered very unhelpful. We talk about the edits. We don't talk about the editors. —valereee (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The ethnicity of the user should not be mentioned at all. Unfortunately at the moment there is an ongoing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and this fact creates bias for users of certain backgrounds, as you can see in this very discussion. If I really did offended someone with that, I really apologize. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I also want to mention that the above user tried numerously to get me banned, unreasonably casting aspertions on me [81]. I think that the one who should be reported is him, not me. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mastersun25, there are conflicts all over the world right now, and we still do not allow editors to call one another xenophobes or to point out that they are a certain ethnicity or have a certain political stance in order to call into suspicion their edits. If the edits are bad, they're bad. It doesn't matter whether a bad edit is made by an Azerbaijani or an Armenian. Both are capable of making good and bad edits. Talk about the edits, not the editor. —valereee (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that I should not have mentioned editors' backgrounds and already apologized for that. I won't be doing this from now on as I learned that there were certain WP rules on that. But my edits weren't disruptive if you check my edit history. Also I wasn't engaged into edit wars regardless of what these two users are saying since I never violated a three-revert rule. Also I want to pay attention to the fact that this is not the first time when these two users work in tandem against me. I AM NOT SURE, but there might be canvassing involved. --Mastersun25 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

It's actually WP:CANVASSING, and you're free to file an SPI if you want to. Keep in mind, it isn't going to look good on you when the SPI fails (and it will). But I don't think that should be your primary concern. Just a thought, maybe take a closer look at your edit history, just a bit more attention you might notice some more important issues at hand. Maybe you'll even notice you breaking several policies and playing "I was on the verge of breaking 3rr but actually I didn't" game (mind you, not a good mentality for an editor if they're here to build an encyclopedia). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You're still doubling down that your edits "weren't disruptive", and generally speaking, "if you check my history" isn't an argument (in fact in this specific case, it works against you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This ANI is about ethnic-based aspertions. As I said, I realized that it was bad to mention people's ethnic backgrounds even if it would explain certain behaviors on Wikipedia. I can assure you that I won't be doing it from now on. What else do you want to hear from me? If you have problems with my edits, we can always discuss on the talk page or feel free to fill another ANI report. But also please remember that sometimes I won't be able to reply fast since I might be busy irl and use Wikipedia only once a week or so. --Mastersun25 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You already doubled down multiple times that your edits "were not disruptive", and you didn't reply or read any of my message(s) on your talk page from the looks of it. Also there aren't "one subject" only ANI cases. If your recent disruptive conduct is also relevant to the case and for ANI, then it should be presented. Btw, your disruptive reverts also were mentioned and cited by the OP, so I don't know what you're talking about (even by your logic). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I love how hard you try to accuse me of something that in your opinion is a disruptive edit completely omitting the fact that the edits I reverted back were made by a troll account who literally spent days and nights here removing every single mention of Azerbaijanis in the history of region [82] [83] [84], claiming that "Azerbaijanis do not have history" [85], created second account EXCLUSIVELY to remove Azerbaijani names from Iranian Khanate articles [86], denying genocide of Azerbaijanis during Karabakh War [87] [88] and finally getting banned for both disruptive behavior and sockpuppetry [89]. Yet the behavior of this person never bothered you nor you have ever voiced your objection to his extremely destructive and non-objective edits, you really believe you are the one to teach me how to behave on Wikipedia? I am not going to make excuses to you personally since you are not the authority here, if the respectful administrators say that my behavior and edits are inappropriate, I will take their opinion into consideration but you can leave as many comments as you want so can your friend Kevork who seems to be editing same articles you do. Cheers --Mastersun25 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I love how hard you try to accuse me of something that in your opinion is a disruptive edit completely omitting the fact that the edits I reverted back were made by a troll account who literally spent days and nights here removing every single mention of Azerbaijanis in the history of region [1] [2] [3]:

I am not trying much at all, in fact, I already presented your problematic edits both in here and in your edit page (it's quite easy actually, just a glance at your edit history for today is enough), which you omitted to discuss and replied with unrelated to your edits pages. Regarding to your presented diffs in general, it would be nice that you show diffs that live up to your overly hyperbolic descriptions of them here.

The user was banned for battleground behaviour, and sockpuppetry 4, how your diffs (except the last one) relate to their ban you have yet to explain (just like your descriptions of them). Also for the 10th time, being banned doesn't mean that you should go around and revert their every edit you find left and right, often times with your revert only reason/description being "banned Armenian sockpuppet" 5. I already notified you of WP:GRAVEDANCING but judging from your response, you are very battle focused, and probably didn't even read any of my messages.

I am not going to make excuses to you personally since you are not the authority here, if the respectful administrators say that my behavior and edits are inappropriate, I will take their opinion into consideration but you can leave as many comments as you want so can your friend Kevork who seems to be editing same articles you do:

You're are not making excuses to me. I'm fairy certain your battle like mentality doesn't allow you to understand that. This is ANI, the community will look at your conduct and they along with the admins will decide if you're able to reasonably contribute to wikipedia or not.

As I already mentioned 2nd time now, you should really stop with the aspersions as you already made nonsense claims of "canvassing". Bear in mind, that unfounded misconduct allegations qualify as personal attacks. You're now doubling down yet again, with weasel words such as "seems" on top of it. Kindly consider this as a last warning because my patience also has its limits, and you will be reported.

All in all, judging by the user's replies, I'm even more inclined to think that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I saw @Mastersun25 reverts today on quite a few pages I previously edited. I already gave the appropriate notices in their talk page, and left a friendly message notifying of their disruptive conduct. Here are some of the more problematic examples of their edits:

WP:GRAVEDANCING 1, 2,, 3 – Keep in mind, the now banned user BaxçeyêReş wasn't banned for sockpuppetry at that time, and @Mastersun25 after not engaging in the talk pages for a long time [4], [5], [6] suddenly chimes in today with a mass revert spree.

WP:EDITWARRING with two different users Ilham Aliyev: Revision history.

And as apparent by their replies here, doubling down on their disruptive conduct and casting aspersions of "xenophobia" with completely unsupported diffs. I didn't want to engage in the mess they've created, but I feel like I have to seeing their continual denial of wrong doing and baseless accusations. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The user keeps edit warring even after this ANI Verin Shorzha: Revision history. Despite me notifying them of AA sanctions in their talk page, they disrupt the page by adding unsourced name that fits their POV, and putting cn tags without even looking at the source (everything is supported by the source itself) diff. I don't think they learned anything from here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ZaniGiovanni and Kevo³²⁷. Based on a review of their edit history, it seems the user is here to push a very clear agenda and not to genuinely build this encyclopedia. Not to mention, most of their edits are unsourced. Even after being reverted, the user continues to restore unsourced content, as in the case of Gardabani. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Cold Season - topic ban proposal

Since last year's ANI thread concerning User:Cold Season's behaviour, Cold Season has continued to display strong ownership behaviour, casting aspersions, and POV pushing through deliberate misrepresentation of sources. When confronted, Cold Season dismissed other editors' concerns with an WP:IDHT attitude and continued reverting. The problematic behaviour has been discussed at Talk:Death of Chow Tsz-lok and Talk:Death of Luo Changqing and I don't think I need to repeat the discussion here. I believe this behaviour has become intractable and I propose an indefinite topic ban on Cold Season from editing articles about Hong Kong politics since 1997. @Ohconfucius, Citobun, OceanHok, Horse Eye Jack, Zanhe, and Underbar dk: Pinging editors involved with related disputes. Deryck C. 21:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Horse Eye Jack is now editing as User:Horse Eye's Back. Citobun (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support – On Hong Kong topics, Cold Season is narrowly focused on pushing a pro-government POV. As mentioned by Deryck Chan, the two above-mentioned pages are the main evidence of this. At Talk:Death of Luo Changqing (created by Cold Season), I detailed my concerns with that article, which simply regurgitated the news frenzy manufactured by Chinese state media. I echo the sentiments regarding Cold Season's editing behaviour. I have generally avoided this user and "their" articles for the past year due to the ownership attitude and reverting behaviour, which I find completely toxic. Citobun (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't really interacted with Cold Season this year since I haven't edited Hong Kong stuff for some time already, so my opinion may not be completely valid. However, this discussion from June last year is the one that came to my mind when I was pinged. He/she certainly has ownership issues, does not show a tendency to engage in discussions, and is rather uncooperative. OceanHok (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping Citobun! I wish they had stopped with the problematic behavior but it doesn’t look like they have, kind of impressive that they’re now up to 588 edits on Death of Chow Tsz-lok (second most prolific editor has 138, third has 17) and 222 edits at Death of Luo Changqing (second most prolific editor has 17, third has 6). I would expand the proposed ban to China related broadly construed, I don’t think that politics in HK post 97 really addresses the scope of disruption, for instance Ming treasure voyages seems to have the same ownership issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from post-1997 Hong Kong politics, per nom; or at least from events and topics related to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, which includes all the other articles mentioned above. I don't see any ownership issues evident at Ming treasure voyages — they are involved in a GA nomination at that article — so I wouldn't support a universal China topic ban. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Guarapiranga

This user has since July 22 taken to editing multiple longevity-related articles including Oldest people, List of the oldest people by country, Supercentenarians by continent and Supercentenarians in the United States. During this time they have:

1. Attempted to introduce flags to an article and when reverted on the basis of WP:MOSFLAG failed to interpret the MOS correctly.
2. Moved multiple articles without discussion renaming them without "List of" even though they are all, specifically, lists. A request to revert these moves is [Talk:Supercentenarians_in_the_United_States#Requested_move_1_August_2021 here] which contains the editor's reasoning.
3. Introduced numerous pointless redlinks and despite these being reverted and User_talk:Guarapiranga#Redlinks explained has gone on to in repeat this in other articles without sufficient justification.
4. Adjusted the rankings on multiple articles so that they are incorrect and when reverted given an inadequate explanation (for want of a better word) at Talk:Supercentenarians_in_the_United_States#Why_are_ties_suddenly_resolved_with_dead_people_ranking_above_living_ones?.

This editor seems to determined to change the format of these articles according to MOS:DTAB, which would not be an issue except that in doing so they have introduced changes to the articles which are by no means constructive and against the wishes of those editors with ongoing interest in the subject (see the last 5 threads at Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States), and with no apparent desire to edit co-operatively. The editor seems to have no interest in the Longevity themselves otherwise this notice would have been more appropriate at ARBCOM, a notice of which has been posted on the user's talk page to no effect (apologies if this is where this should in fact have been taken). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment As a long time editor with an interest in this topic area, I have been bewildered by Guarapiranga's edits and conduct. The names of over a dozen articles (ex. Supercentenarians in the United States) have undergone three mass renaming's in recent days, all by the editor in question (and all undiscussed). The obvious nature of the articles, that they are lists, is now obfuscated. Far more troubling is the editor's dramatic unilateral changes to the content and coding of these same and other longevity articles. As DerbyCountyinNZ stated, the editor in question has made list ranking's incorrect, added flags, and much more.

At List of the oldest people by country, they: added a sea of perma-redlinks; bloated the article with an almost 100% redundant birthplace tab instead of just having the longstanding streamlined "place of death or residence" tab with a footnote if borders changed etc; removed information about the oldest of both genders per country while outing themselves of having no idea how the article had worked before they transformed it with no prior discussion. They added the same (1 2) bloated and pointless birthplace tab at List of the oldest living people.

The easy to understand and longstanding coding systems of many of the longevity articles, such as at List of the oldest people by country and many of the country lists, has been dramatically changed with no prior discussion, disrupting the work of the topic's most prolific editor, and mystifying myself. As the discussion in which the above comment took place shows, their is a firm community consensus that the editor in question has dramatically disrupted the aforementioned articles in the topic of longevity, nor do they have any actual understanding of or interest in these articles. In conversations linked above, it is also clear the editor in question has no desire to discus momentous changes with the community to reach consensus before sudden implementation, nor any interest in such discussion going forward. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - If the editor-in-question is being so disruptive? He/she should be topic banned from said articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed WordwizardW (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• This editor has a habit of making huge unilateral changes to fit their preferred pattern. That is fine and bold by itself, but they do not seem interested in consensus where disagreement emerges. In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#RfC: Dependent territories and subnational areas they opened an RfC and then closed it themseves claiming a particular consensus suiting their view despite receiving no support for this view in the RfC. They then went on to cite this supposed result to justify their edits elsewhere ([90][91][92]). More recently, they have edit-warred in significant changes to List of countries and dependencies, despite not receiving much support in an RfC that they opened. Note also in those RfCs the tendency to bludgeon the discussions with replies to everything. In another instance, I was recently perplexed by this post, where they opened a discussion by asking if we should start an edit war, which is quite the WP:battleground opening. CMD (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The participation in Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States#Requested move 1 August 2021 (mentioned in the opening) is typical. Guarapiranga berates others for not AGFing, while saying in another comment "I haven't yet seen here listed any drawbacks...just that some editors are upset by change". Meanwhile, while this is move request is going on with so far unanimous input against their rationale, they move List of countries by number of Internet users to Internet users by country with the exact same rationale. CMD (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I moved that page back to its original title, but made a mistake & named it List of countries of Internet users. PS - Got an administrator to fix up my mistake ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Block until the user seriously engages in discussion—that means reading and listening rather than skipping straight to the writing stage. Page moves and mass changes are incredibly disruptive when misused and this move after this ANI discussion was opened, without so much as a comment here, warrants an immediate block. A topic ban from longevity-related articles, broadly construed, would also be acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Block until the user seriously engages in discussion
  I have, at:
  • Talk:Supercentenarians from the United Kingdom
  • Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States
  • Talk:Supercentenarians from Japan
  • Talk:List of the oldest people by country
• this move after this ANI discussion was opened, without so much as a comment here, warrants an immediate block.
  Unrelated topic. This here is explicitly about longevity-related articles.^[1]

— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• On top of the Internet list move mentioned above, Guarapiranga has also decided that this is a good time to reinsert a previous 19 July edit at Continent, which they know does not have consensus and had previously been discussed at both that talkpage and at Talk:Asia. A topic ban as suggested is not a useful remedy; this is a core behavioural issue throughout their editing, and their reply to Bilorv above shows that this is not understood. Agree with block as suggested by Bilorv, especially in light of continued tendentious editing during this AN/I. CMD (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with points noted by Newshunter12. I'm on the fence about a Block as I believe everyone has a right to "BE BOLD", but not at the expense of mangling an article. Had a thorough discussion been held prior to the article move, the non-encyclopedic argument could have been made and discussed, as well as the proposed need to make the changes (which I do disagree with). I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ that "this move after this ANI discussion was opened, without so much as a comment here, warrants an immediate block." But as Chipmunkdavis correctly notes, a topic ban is not a useful remedy. If this continues to be a productive discussion, with Guarapiranga agreeing to follow the consensus, style guidelines, and amend their editing behaviors, then I will step off the fence about a block. Spacini (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  You already have evidence of that, Spacini; not only I cite wp:policies and guidelines when explaining my edits, (as you can see at Talk:Supercentenarians from the United Kingdom, at Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States, at Talk:Supercentenarians from Japan and at Talk:List of the oldest people by country), but in his very first complaint, DerbyCountyinNZ says that I attempted to introduce flags to an article. Did he say I re-introduced them? Did he say I edit warred on this? No, he said I failed to interpret the MOS correctly. Really? Is that the accusation?? Did I not follow the consensus? I did. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  But even though I advised you that longevity is subject to ARBCOM on 23 July and listed the issues with your problematic editing on 27 July and with the extensive threads on Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States starting on 28 July indicating that numerous editors had/have issues with these changes, you continued with the same editing bahaviour (i.e. editing without reaching consensus). This is a pretty clear indication of an editor who is unwilling to edit co-operatively. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  (ec)Linking to those talk page discussions do you no favor; in fact they reiterate your tenditious editing and shine a light on WP:CIR. You seem to be emotionally invested in these articles which may make it hard to swallow other editors' constructive criticisms. Maybe consider taking a breather for a week or so and digest the advice others have provided -- if things do not go your way, accept the consensus and edit in other areas of interest. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Potentially illegitimate logged-out editing

I grew suspicious of 109.79.167.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) when they cited a humorous essay as the rationale behind their refusal to register as a user after saying they were editing Wikipedia anonymously as I am entitled to do and not making any claim to being different people. While irritating, I understood it did not violate WP:ILLEGIT. Now I'm seeing that Nyxaros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has accused them of being a banned user. Is there a way to prove (or disprove) this? KyleJoan^talk 02:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Presumably 109.79.161.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also the same editor. At some point, after many months and many IPs, the complaints "you don't seem like a new editor" are just silly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

But does that prove they were not a banned user prior to editing under the different IPs? KyleJoan^talk 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I edit anonymously. KyleJoan doesn't like me, and although I don't appreciate the accusations I can politely agree to disagree with KyleJoan. I am under no obligation to use fakenames and collect barnstars, I choose not to login, I wouldn't characterize is at "refuse to" I'm simply not required to.

Nyxaros (talk · contribs) aka Sebastian James (talk · contribs) is rude and hostile and has long been so (which is why it was so easy to recognise the same user despite a name change), and continues to be unpleasant. His user page claims he is "no longer here" which is plainly not true. Nyxaros is lashing out.

You can't disprove a negative. I can apologize in advance to the admins for wasting their time because there's nothing to see here. I had an account long ago and I abandoned it. I disagree with people and discuss, but these accusations of sock puppetry are baseless. -- 109.79.167.172 (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

And how do we know that account of yours from long ago is not banned? KyleJoan^talk 03:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't.

Even if I found the old account and showed it to you or the admins you would probably think I had some other account. You can't disprove a negative.

I am surprised that someone would think my edit pattern is indicative of some grand scheme or devious intent that would cause anyone to bother with a sock puppet. I should probably be doing something else more productive with my time but we could probably all say that. -- 109.79.167.172 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @KyleJoan: if you don't have any evidence the IP is banned, and you don't suspect them of being a sock of any specific user, please stop making accusations now. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not accused the IP of anything. The fact that they're not able to outright say their editing does not violate WP:CLEANSTART seems like an issue, so I believe it's natural to wonder why they've never exercised the option to privately disclose their previous account to an admin with the CheckUser tool and shut down any suspicions. KyleJoan^talk 03:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

KyleJoan, you say that you didn't accuse the IP of anything, though effectively you did, then you proceed to continue with the accusation ("natural to wonder") in the same comment where you say you didn't accuse them. I have no idea about the veracity or lack thereof of this IP, but a little self-awareness, please. There's a limit to what one can do with semantic plays. This would be quite different if you were to pose a general query about what if anything should be done with an IP editor who has knowledge of CLEANSTART —indeed, hardly the most intuitive policy to find— without naming said IP immediately (or, naming them, but with actual evidence). El_C 12:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits by IP editor

150.101.157.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has done extensive editing of the article Latin Empire over the last few days. The massive amount of small edits have clogged up the article history and are mostly based either in misunderstanding the information in the article or misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. The article is far from as good as it could be, but 150.101.157.18's first round of edits involved changing "The Latin Empire, also referred to as the Latin Empire of Constantinople, was a feudal Crusader state" to "The Latin Empire, also referred to as the Latin Empire of Constantinople, is a modern concoction, referring to a poorly articulated construct, which even at the height of its power, was of questionable legitimacy and even more questionable specificity", adding numerous comments directly into the article text as if they were correcting an essay, and adding cleanup tags in the actually well-cited etymology section because of "inadequate attribution". Given that this was clearly a POV edit, that violated common practice, I reverted this version.

They've persisted in editing the article. They're now edit-warring to keep their second version of the article, which begins with the POV first sentence "The Latin Empire, also referred to as the Latin Empire of Constantinople, was a briefly held feudal Crusader state founded by the leaders of that magnanimous failure" (note that the bold terms are also linked, which is against policy), adds an "overview of events" section which goes against the standard format and adds even more obnoxious comments directly into the article text (some comments relating to content they themselves added) as if they were a school teacher correcting a student's paper. They persist in wanting to keep this version even after I've explained the issues and I don't think bringing it up on their talk page will do anything given that they've never responded to anything there before. I don't think the term trolling would be inappropriate here - see for instance this edit, adding new content alongside their own comments to that content and calling the article "a piece of ****". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, they do like the term "troll": [93][94]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Just reporting that they are continuing to add unsourced POV edits to the article. I don't know what action can be taken but it is bordering on disruptive since they've been informed and warned several times. They've also been doing the same thing at Baldwin I, Latin Emperor. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328

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

---

Hi I went to the Teahouse for help and I received a response from Cullen328 on August 1, 2021. My questions were about the 2017 Biography for Barry C. Sherman. On August 2, 2021 Cullen328 told me not connect with him or Wikipedia. He used large letters in his salutation, Longel AGAIN, ........ and he said the subject with reference in Contents 5.2 of possible suspects there needs to be a Published source. I do not know exactly what he means by Published source but he's closed the door said I'm not suitable to Wikipedia. Plus, I was not happy with Cullen328 reference why did he think of Tim Minchin? Can you make sense out of this situation or do you think I should stop using your website?--Longel (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree with Cullen328.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So you're a "psychic" who wants to add their personal views on homicide cases to the respective Wikipedia articles? ValarianB (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Cullen328 is right. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-admin explanation, as this should really have been dealt with at the Teahouse stage and not made itself all the way here): Roughly-speaking, Wikipedia doesn't report what happened. It reports what the newspapers say happened. In a homicide, a detective might know who's guilty, but WP won't report what the detective knows. It will only report what the New York Times says the detective knows. It's the same with you, @Longel; you may know who did it, but unless the New York Times (or similar) reports your knowledge second-hand, it's not going to get into WP. You may find this illogical, but the reason is this: Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and it doesn't assess the reliability of all the primary information that's out there. We don't know if you're a good psychic, or if the detective is a good detective. As a tertiary source, we decide that the New York Times is a good secondary source (whom we trust) and we rely on the New York Times to screen its primary sources of information and only report things that are probably true (assessing primary sources is not a trivial task). So yes, if you want to report what you know personally, Wikipedia isn't the right place to do it. Elemimele (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Longel: others have already given you good advice but to emphasise one particular point you especially need to stop making claiming about living persons without a reliable secondary source. While Barry Sherman died more than 2 years ago so BLP does not apply to them, you are making claims about "suspects". The people you mentioned are already in our article as they've been sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources. However it's still completely inappropriate for you to make any claims about them or other living persons based on your own supposed knowledge rather than what reliable secondary sources say. The fact that you keep claiming it's psychic knowledge lessons the concerns, however you still need to stop for BLP and other reasons. Note that this doesn't mean talking about Barry Sherman or other things that don't involve living persons coming from your 'psychic knowledge' is okay. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Relevant links are:

• WP:TEA#Barry Sherman
• User talk:Cullen328#Barry C Sherman Biography 2017 Ontario Canada

@Longel: Wikipedia can't just take people's word for things; claims like that have to be cited, because it has to satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Unless you're able to provide sources which can verify and are considered notable reliable, your experience on here is going to be a frustrating one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments here. Anyone who reads my interactions with Longel will see that I discussed things with them politely and tried to be informative, but they came back over and over with the same nonsense until I asked then to stop posting on my talk page. And then they posted again. I don't know what else to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly Cullen, I don't think you needed to say even that much in order to forestall any concern about your conduct here, the source of the disruption (by way of a WP:CIR shortfall) is so obvious. Mind you, I really respect how Elemimele, Nil Einne, and Tenryuu have approached their responses to the OP, turning this situation into a teachable moment by explaining how our policies would apply here even if we lived in a reality where psychic visions were considered a credible source of knowledge in a more general sense. That is to say, they have dodged the question of the type of WP:OR being employed by the OP, so that they can emphasize the more central fact that it is indeed OR, thus anchoring the explanation in the important policy distinction rather than getting bogged down by the particularly...dubious provenance of the information. I wholly support what they did there.

That said, given those three veteran contributors took the time to frame the discussion in terms theoretically helpful to the OP, I will instead make my observations more blunt and oriented to you and the community at large: putting aside the deficits with the OP with regard to WP:V/OR (which is an issue we can and do teach new editors to understand constantly, as a community) there's a pretty big question as to whether this editor is (and is ever likely to be) WP:HERE to work on the encyclopedia in the conventional sense and willing to tackle the work with an approach and skillset that we would regard as basically competent. If their idea of contributing to our project is to add their "psychic" observations to the article, I have considerable doubts that simply explaining original research to them will suffice to transform them into a someone who understands what Wikipedia is and is not. Wrap in the pretty obvious and substantial WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and I think you arguably would have been in the clear to block this editor at early points in your interaction, likely without pushback from most experienced editors.

I suppose at this point it would not be very appropriate to block the editor if they take every last bit of the feedback here seriously and stop trying to add this unsourced, BLP-violating, original research nonsense to any article or even talk space -and- back off on their aggressive posturing with regard to you. But if there is the slightest bit of further disruption (and given the facts here, I'm suspecting there will be), a CIR block should come swifttly and in the indefinite variety. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• To answer your question, @Longel: yes, I think you should stop using this website. Your worldview is fundamentally in opposition to a fact-based encyclopedia. But I imagine you already knew I was going to say that? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  Some years ago, a British tabloid newspaper sacked its astrology correspondent. The editor's letter of dismissal began, "As you doubtless already know..." Narky Blert (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Longel: BTW, since no one pointed it out yet, it was User:Valjean not Cullen328 who mentioned Tim Minchin. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen the comment in question, but to answer the OPs question as to why Tim Minchin was mentioned in this context, I would suspect it has something to do with this, or one of Minchin's other songs/spoken word works that take aim at non-empirical/faith phenomena. It's not exactly the most on-the-point way to address the shortcomings for on-project purposes, but given the circumstances, I'm not surprised someone said something along these lines. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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

41.242.138.2 being outrageously offensive

Could someone sort out this [95]? No one should have to put up with that sort of abuse, and no one should be writing stuff like that (elided) I'll go and think of something polite to put on 41.242.138.2's talk to warn them I'm bringing their statement here. Elemimele (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done That's WP:LTA/NS. They often return, but ignore them apart from a) instantly throwing them at WP:AIV, and b) requesting protection at WP:RFPP if appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuzz:, thanks, it's the first time I'd had the pleasure of making their acquaintance. Elemimele (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 41.218.192.0/20 for a spell. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that they seem to have hopped around several IPs in the past day: 41.210.18.9, 41.57.217.124, 154.160.11.26, 195.29.55.190, and 197.220.169.154. CodeTalker (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

They are active again at 41.203.232.171 and 103.155.118.24. Never mind, looks like these have already been handled. CodeTalker (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruption on Alexei Navalny by brand new accounts

The article is currently subject to 1RR and is facing disruption by a wave of new accounts since yesterday as seen in the history. After a particular edit is reverted, another new account is created and shows up to restore it, and repeat. A brand new account made this edit on the article, which I reverted and explained in the edit summary. This discussion about the subject's nationalism also has been well discussed on the talk page not long ago. That account has not made any more edits (in fact all of these accounts disappear after a new one is made), and another brand new account restored that edit and made another edit that can be viewed as a BLP violation. This was reverted by RenatUK. Another brand new account appeared to restore it and try to include more sources, which I reverted and again explained why, and now another newly created account has shown up to restore it and make more changes in the article. I can only assume this is one person (a message was left on my talk page by the most recent account to say that I was "wrong"). Mellk (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the three users as obvious socks, someone needs to semi-protect the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh. I was sure I did, but I guess not. Anyway, now Done. El_C 14:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Mellk (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Editor behaviour over Twinkle response

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

---

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

Back on 18 July Juanpumpchump edited Dave Courtney to change "celebrity gangster" to "Alledged ex gangster" - with the edit summary of "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar". I reverted it here with the summary of "RVT personal opinion" and as the edit summary also seemed deceptive, left a level two Twinkle response on his page - "Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Dave Courtney. Thank you."

Juanpumpchump reverted this warning with the edit summary of "Autistic morons self opinionated message removed", as well as a response on my talk page, which he then embellished here

I responded with another Twinkle reply - NPA - for the "Autistic morons" comment.

Another response from Juanpumpchump today on my talk page accusing me of the one doing the attacking, ("clearly personally attack another Wikipedian") and that "if any one else on here would like to step in an administer in a neutral position then I am quite happy for that"

There is nothing in Juanpumpchump's editing history to suggest that they're a vandal editor, presumably they don't like Dave Courtney (or me - understandable,) but nevertheless, behaviour around that specific edit seems to warrant comment, especially as Juanpumpchump has welcomed it.

Prepared to be trouted for pettiness, but is it now acceptable to accuse editors of picking up on faux-edit summaries of being autistic morons? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

On the behaviour issue it is unacceptable to call another editor a moron, and even more unacceptable to use "autistic" as a term of abuse. I know several people with autism and their intelligence and good sense ranges in a similiar way to my non-autistic friends. On the content issue I have difficulty undertanding how either "celebrity gangster" or "alleged ex-gangster" can be called an occupation. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I think it's a lot like "instagram influencer." The world makes fools of us all. On the PA, clearly Juanpumpchump's behavior is unacceptable. I would recommend reviewing admin's consider a very short-term block.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I've placed a 31-hour block for the egregious personal attack, which they apparently are unable to see any issue with. Juanpumpchump, Chaheel Riens acted perfectly reasonably here in asking you to provide references when making changes to articles, and did not attack you; you were the one who acted inappropriately with the "autistic morons" comment and the follow-up on their talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely unacceptable to refer to other editors as "autistic morons", or to use that anywhere as a term of abuse or disparagement, and such usage on Wikipedia should be treated as seriously as racism or misogyny and lead to an immediate block. RolandR (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I endorse RolandR's post. I am not quite on the autistic scale, but I know online two people who identify as such. Neither is a moron; one is a PhD. This sort of insult is utterly unacceptable, anywhere. Narky Blert (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

31 hours is VERY generous. That comment has no place here, period. Juanpumpchump if I see a comment like that from you again, you'll be indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam gave the same warning on their talk page, and I will add my name to the list of admins who will place an indefinite block if the behavior recurs. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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

MjolnirPants incivility

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

---

Would an uninvolved admin please let MjolnirPants/MPants at work that CIVIL is not optional. Per WP:UNCIVIL, "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. " I have had very little interaction with MPants but I regret to say what little I've had has been almost universally hostile and looking at their interactions with others I'm not the only one to experience their BATTLEGROUND behavior. I'm not sure we had any significant interactions prior to a few recent and very acrid interactions. MPants returned from an OversightBlock Indef in April. This appears to be related to disruptions in Feb 2019 including "severe personal attacks". In the past they have shown battleground behavior but it appears this was typically to new editors in contentious topic areas. MPants has shown clear UNCIVIL issues directed at myself and other editors on various topics.

Talk:Andy_Ngo#provoking_violence_revert: This discussion was opened with accusations directed at (presumably) myself and Korny O'Near

• [[96]]: I'd submit that anyone who can't see [MPant's view] doesn't belong on this project. This starts the discussion with a needles, rude accusation directed at anyone who didn't agree with MPant's view.
• [[97]]: ...your denial of that fact is (assuming good faith, here) sheer incompetence. Because if it isn't incompetence, it's POV pushing and a deliberately dishonest edit summary.
• [[98]]: So you're just lying through your teeth at this point. Got it. POV pushing it is.
• [[99]]: Jesus christ, there should be a rule requiring people to read the thread before commenting in it. In reply to Korny O'Near [100]
• [[101]]: You absolutely are lying, and doing so to WP:GAME the 1rr restriction here. That's not a lack of an argument: I've already proven my case. Your blatant dishonesty doesn't change that fact.

On an admin talk page

• [[102]]: DON'T LIE THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH TO ENGAGE IN POV PUSHING. On an admit talk page responding to my concern regarding MPant's civility.

A BLPN discussion:

• [[103]]: I don't much care what you think about it in any case, as you've already shot way past the point of WP:PACT as far as I'm concerned. This is in reply to comments of mine that echoed Masem's.
• [[104]]: So you don't know how to count to two? That's just... Wow.

MPant's battlegound behavior was noted by Snow Rise here [[105]], in reply to, "What the fuck is this shit? You made two TP comments, tried to edit war and are now jumping to an RfC" directed at Volteer1.

Other examples

• [[106]]: Also, if you don't care to be directed to conservapedia, then perhaps you should stop arguing as if you better belong there.
• [[107]]: Also, your statement is false. Like, breathtakingly false. I agree with the sentiment but the snark does not make for a better editing environment.
• [[108]]: Stop what? Pointing out that your own behavior has been substantially subpar throughout this? Sorry, that's a feature of ANI. If you don't like it, maybe you should stay away from this page.

Granting that MPants may be correct in some/all of these cases (including the content disputes I'm involved with), UNCIVIL makes no exception for editors who are otherwise "correct". Such behavior needlessly inflames what should be content based disagreements. Springee (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm just going to respond by pointing out that I stand behind everything I said in those diffs, because Springee started by falsely claiming that a source doesn't support some content because it phrased it slightly differently (see WP:PARAPHRASE), then argued that two sources which explicitly use the same wording as was used in the article don't actually support the exact claims those sources made.

Springee told bald-faced lies for the purpose of gaming the 1RR restriction at that article. Maybe I should have been more circumspect in how I phrased things, but I absolutely do not appreciate being lied to by someone who damn well knows I can see right through those lies, and no editor on this project has any business whatsoever engaging in dishonesty on that level. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Springee has been forum shopping this for a few days now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The way to address the content dispute is to provide the quotes. You did. I showed they don't support your claim. You could have easily brought this up to WP:V rather than accuse other editors of lying etc. Do you think accusing editors of lying is OK per CIVIL? Springee (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but: MPants, CIVIL is not optional. OK? Now, I've gone through every one of the diffs here, and the only one that goes significantly over the line of CIVIL is the one in bold font. (The "count to two" comment comes in second, but in context is pointing out a 2-point list immediately above it.) And a lot of them are not civility violations at all, in any real sense, but rather just "telling it like it is". Is it really incivil to say: "Stop what? Pointing out that your own behavior has been substantially subpar throughout this? Sorry, that's a feature of ANI. If you don't like it, maybe you should stay away from this page."?

Let's be clear what really led to this filing: [109]. The post by MPants on his own talk page of a link to Springee reverting some comments, piped to "Who says Civil POV Pushers can't be a source of comedy?" Followed immediately below by the notice to see here. MPants, you didn't really need to poke that particular beehive, and you should make a little more effort to avoid sounding pissed-off during discussions. Remember what led into the block you had before, and make an extra effort not to get into that place again. Beyond that, there's not much else to see here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Tryp: I didn't post that link. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, that was my mistake. It was an IP, and it was unsigned. But, unsigned, it was easy to mistake it for something you posted, yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean you saw something which purported to be funny but was just generic shit-stirring, and still assumed it was me? I'm hurt, man. I'm real hurt.

I'm gonna go cry in the shower, now.

In all seriousness, I had forgotten about the IP's comment and hadn't followed the link until you mentioned it, but I've reverted it since because there's nothing funny or useful about that. I might have linked the discussion that was removed in that diff if I'd been filing an ANI or AE about Springee, but as far as I'm concerned, the complete loss of my ability to AGF with Springee is where the issue ended. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, do you really still stand by the [comment] about me belonging at Conservapedia, as well as the edit before that, in which you said that This arguing about what the sources say is 100% pure pedantry [...] No-one here is stupid or confused enough to actually believe that, and none of us were born yesterday. If it offends you that Wikipedia should state such a simple, verifiable fact in plain, direct tones, then you should go edit conservapedia, instead. ? I'm still waiting for that apology I asked for, especially given that you still haven't come up with the source I was asking for there, but primarily as a matter of principle. Needless to say, I also object to Tryptofish's glossing over this as if it were not a civility violation at all, or "telling it like it is" (though of course I can forgive them for not reading through that whole acrid talk page discussion in the context of which MjolnirPant's remarks were made). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. And you can wait for an apology all you like. I wouldn't recommend holding your breath, though.

As to the source you claim I haven't provided: Sources were provided that met any reasonable criteria long before I got involved in the discussion. Not my fault that you didn't read the discussion before joining it, yourself. And for the record: I object to your refusal to accept that the null hypothesis is part and parcel of how we report on science and pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apaugasma, you raise valid points. I will say in my own defense that I said "a lot of them" were not incivil, as opposed to all. At the same time, you described MPants as having a "tantrum" in your apology-request diff, so it goes in both directions. Bottom line: there's a general need in these linked discussions for editors to take it down a notch. That doesn't apply exclusively to MPants, but it does apply to MPants. Please, seriously, take it down a notch or two. This isn't sanction-worthy territory, but it does require some introspection. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: you're right that I shouldn't have used the word "tantrum" in my reaction to MjolnirPants comments. However, that doesn't mean there's any parity here between mine and his behavior, as this may seem to suggest. @MjolnirPants: Neither you nor I have brought up the null hypothesis in that discussion, and I'm not really sure if it's relevant. But that doesn't matter at all here. It's perfectly OK for you to believe I'm missing something or to point out why I'm taking the wrong approach, but it's not OK for you to suggest that I belong at Conservapedia just because I don't agree with you on something. There definitely is a pattern with you in that type of reaction. A few months ago in another disagreement between us, you wrote the following: "anti-religionist bias" Why am I not surprised to see this brought up? I swear to the god I stopped believing in decades ago; you people are all reading from the same script. There is no "anti-religionist bias," and even if you found enough religion-hostile atheists to argue the case for it, you'd lose dramatically because Wikipedia has an incredibly pronounced pro-Christian bias [...] that the majority of atheists on this site (including myself) are completely accepting of because, contrary to what you folks seem to believe, we're Atheists, not Antitheists. [...] You've undermined your own position by descending to these pre-packaged, easily-debunked, canned arguments that one can find on any creationist website, complete with detailed instructions on their use. Neither of you were able to make your case with sources and sound logic, your continued attempts to make it through emotional rhetoric is bordering on disruption, at this point. [110] Given the fact that I'm both an atheist and a skeptic (wrt pseudoscience), these kinds of insinuations are particularly bruising. I wish for that to stop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Previous complaints about this user's incivility: [111] [112] [113]

Note that these are all recent (last few months) and are all filed by different users, so we can't really argue that it's just a group of people working together to get an editor sanctioned (as was asserted the last time this issue was raised).

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 22:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

What this appears to be to me is a veteran editor (MPants) getting exasperated dealing with other editors who appear to not be acting in good faith. For example, the diffs provided show several instances of Springee WP:SEALIONing quotations and not addressing them [114] [115] [116], or ignoring the way that WP:V means that something must be verif-iable, not verif-ied to remain on wikipedia. Springee says The sentence in the article must be supported by the sources that it obviously references (hence WP:V) whereas WP:V actually says: "Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified." There is also the issue of WP:SYNTHNOT, particularly NOTSUMMARY and NOTPRESUMED.

What is clear is that MPants has made one or two mistakes in these diffs, as described by other editors above. civillity mistakes. No one can deny that sometimes MPants plays fast and loose with sarcasm, but he rarely actually crosses the line. For instance, in your first diff, he is theorizing about conduct, he does not directly address any editor. I don't see any other comments here that are explicit enough to be WP:NPA, though I would agree some are just on the wrong side of uncivil. Generally I am willing to forgive one or two civillity mistakes when the editor being so frustrating is so clearly WP:CPUSHing a POV, and exemplifying WP:IDHT. It's very difficult to keep your cool when not everyone is playing by the same rules and actually using PAGs correctly. What MPants needs here is a warning. What Springee needs is a WP:BOOMERANG block for POV-pushing and WP:FORUM shopping.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The editor was Indef'ed. The editor has a long history of blocks due to incivility. Additionally, the claims regarding the original content dispute at Andy Ngo is flat out wrong. It's telling that no editors have supported MPants claims. There has been no POV pushing, no forum shopping. Since you are claiming both please provide the evidence. Springee (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants appealed the indef – successfully. It's telling that Shibbolethink did in fact provide diffs, and yet Springee responded by asking for diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbolethink. MPants is a seasoned editor, and while their attitude and style may not exemplify a "welcome wagon" for the less experienced they still understand not only the rules, but the spirit of the rules, better than most. This knowledge and understanding tends to get in the way of agendas that have little to do with creating better articles or a better community.DN (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Darknipples: not all of those whom MjolnirPants opposes have such agendas. Please consider what I've asked of Shibbolethink below. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants was indef'ed to being with. Shibbolethink provided a diffs but failed to note that I did address the quotes in question. Here [[117]], where I make it clear the VOX quote is something VOX is attributing to activists and the LA times is saying the right wing groups Ngo was with provoked the violence. That is not sufficient sourcing to say that Ngo himself deliberately provoked violence. Shibbolethink claimed CPUSH but if that were the case why did MPants start with a comment that failed CIVIL? Shouldn't that have only occurred after a failed, good faith attempt to address the issue? Why is any of that an excuse for uncivil behavior? Note that Volteer1 also addressed MPant's quotes here [[118]]. Finally, look at how I was able to easily work with FormalDude to find common ground and propose new text to address the problem (look towards the end of the section [[119]]). Disagreement is fine, incivility is not. Springee (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Would this have still been a problem though if you had simply ignored MPants tone and focused on his arguments? Likewise, if MPants hadn't assumed bad faith and raised his tone, would this even be a problem? (And please don't respond with he started it, all editors have a responsibility to exemplify WP:CIVIL at all times.) I think everyone just needs to work on keeping their cool a little more. It's fair to say we can all let disagreements get the better of us from time to time. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: you speak of what I pointed out above as a civility mistake (fair enough), but then go on to to say that you're willing to forgive one or two civility mistakes when the editors involved are engaging in civil POV pushing and being disruptive by refusing to 'get the point'. That seems to imply that you are accusing me of said conduct, which does not seem appropriate if you are not going to prove your point about that. Again, I get that looking into the relevant discussions is a highly unpleasant and time-consuming task, but it would be nice if you made less presumptions about the behavior of other editors. Please understand that if you do not, you are reinforcing the original insults, which I'm sure is not at all your intention. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, actually I haven't looked closely enough at your angle of the dispute to know for sure. Hence why I never used your name in any way in my comment. Please don't assume I'm talking about you when I haven't actually referenced anything about you in any way. I currently have no opinion on your conduct. And don't assume everyone who is supporting MPants in one angle of this discussion automatically disagrees with you, to my eyes it's an example of WP:USTHEM which is a very destructive attitude to have.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I did not and do not assume that you would automatically disagree with me, quite the opposite. I'm just trying to make you aware of the implications it might have to say that MPant's civility mistakes are forgivable because directed at disruptive editors or editors who appear not be acting in good faith. I appreciate that this is your general experience. But there are specific diffs here, and your reaction implies either that you're willing to pass over the insult against me in silence or that I'm a disruptive editor. I'm sure that if you would try to put yourself in my position, you'd see why that feels sour. I do not at all doubt your good intentions in this. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, Why don't you give me some time to review your end of this dispute? The implications you've described are not ones I intended, and I believe that is all I should have to say.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! :-) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know, MPants has always had kind of a whiney and shit attitude. The sealion claims are a little weak as well, I am fairly certain he is an adult that is or should be in control of his own actions. That kind of defense always reminds me of the "if she didn't want to get hit she shouldn't of made me angry" defense. Anyhow all you have to do it look through the archives on any drama board to see his name brought up over and over. This is a long term problem, not an isolated incident. How many warnings and final warns are required exactly? PackMecEng (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  The irony in the above post is almost deafening. Valeince (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• The defense of the comments bother me more than the comments themselves. No, the quoted diffs are not all right. It's not how we should be talking to one another. Levivich 23:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Levivich, I think you may be reading into things when you use the word "defending." I, for one, never said MP's comments were "all right." --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • This statement is defending (and excusing, and accusing other editors of not acting in good faith... like PME said, suggesting that this is a veteran editor exasperated by bad-faith editors is akin to "he wouldn't hit her if she didn't make him so angry"). Levivich 23:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

      Levivich, uhhhhh, it's actually a lot closer to "Person 1 wouldn't get angry and yell if person 2 didn't completely ignore everything person 1 said repeatedly."

      A) making it into a gender thing is unnecessary and wrong on a few different levels.

      B) Both of these people were using their words.

      C) "making MPants angry" is not the same as "repeatedly ignoring policy."

      As I said, MPants' conduct is also plainly problematic in one or two instances, for which he should apologize. I'm not really sure how warning-block escalation works in these circumstances, especially given that the prior block was successfully appealed. But as I said, MPants conduct is problematic, I just don't think it raises to the level of problematic that Springee is displaying here.

      Perhaps most importantly, Springee is breaking the rules in a way that disrupts the process of building a verifiable wikipedia, whereas MPants is hurting some people's feelings in a way that hasn't deterred anyone's participation on the wiki as far as I can tell. Ultimately, that is the community's job, to make sure the project benefits from our actions here at ANI. Not to be "fair." Usually these things coincide, but not always.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I will say that it has slightly (but only slightly!) contributed to my decision to stay away from pseudo-science-related topics in the future. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I have broken no rules here. Which rules do you claim I've broken? Forum shopping? No, I did ask an admin and was told to take it here. CPUSH? On what grounds? WP:V is not something we ignore. If you feel I've violated something please make a case. Springee (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Dlthewave is not an admin [120] [121]. That's WP:CANVAS. As I described above (with diffs and PAG quotes), you directly misapplied WP:V to fit your POV, after continually doubting direct quotes which contradicted your position. That's WP:CPUSH.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, they aren't an admin and they have no ability to directly address the issue which means that wasn't forum shopping. The other person I asked for help is an admin. If you want to dispute the content claims then we can do it on the article talk page. It's notable that I wasn't the only editor who disagreed with MPants. The quotes in the linked articles (note the original edit didn't have those citations) don't support the article level claims. WP:V does apply. If you really want to discuss the content question again, article talk page or WP:NORN where we can decide if the sources support the claim in wiki voice. This was handled civilly by other editors even after MPants made it about editors "lying" Springee (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: MPants is hurting some people's feelings in a way that hasn't deterred anyone's participation on the wiki as far as I can tell – MPants's extreme rudeness towards me in another instance this year, along with the community's disinterest in addressing it, has been the single most deterring thing I've experienced in my three-quarters of a decade here, narrowly beating out one other extremely unpleasant incident that nearly caused me to retire. Whether you intend to or not, the outcome of your comments is that attention is deflected away from a situation that needs addressing and that does cause editor retention problems. I feel Springee is being extremely restrained in their comments about MPants in this thread, whether or not they have acted wrong procedurally/content-wise (not really relevant). (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd note that my "extreme rudeness" in that situation consisted of... [checks notes] me pointing out Bilorv's dishonesty and WP:GAMING. Hmmm, there seems to be a pattern here... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's always going to stir the pot when you accuse another editor of Wikipedia:Lying, but, as far as I'm aware, there's no policy against doing so. Obviously WP:UNCIVIL exists, and there were certainly comments that could have been worded nicer, but there was nothing flagrant (I don't see any WP:PA). I completely agree with Shibbolethink. Sometimes MPants plays fast and loose with sarcasm, but he rarely (if ever, in my opinion) actually crosses the line. I'm curious what remedy Springee would find ideal, as I certainly don't think anyone deserves a block in this situation. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A clear warning that such behavior is not acceptable. FOC, not the editors would be fine. So long as the problem stops nothing more is needed. Springee (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I second this: if the problem would stop, nothing more would need to be done. I do think though that this would necessitate some kind of recognition that there is in fact a problem. I was more irked by the I stand behind everything I said in those diffs above than anything else. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This user has been given many warnings and even several blocks and their behaviour, so far as I can tell, has never changed. Maybe no clear warnings, though, as there is always significant whataboutism. (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If we warn Mpants about WP:CIVIL we should probably also warn you about WP:GAMING the WP:1RR. Personally I wouldn't bring any issues to AN/i where my own behavior in the matter was not overtly superb. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Where did I game 1RR? Springee (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, since I was pinged, in regards to the BLPN debate, prior to Springee's involvement, I would say that between MPants and myself, this has been mostly a civil, if not heated, debate, and felt no hostility from Mpants myself. I expect from above there may be a history between MPants and Springee that may be affecting how both interact with each other. Arguably, both may be poking at each other, unintentionally or not, but I know the hesitation against an interaction ban. --Masem (t) 00:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall any direct interactions with MPants prior to either the BLPN discussion you are involved with or the specific Andy Ngo discussion topic. Prior to a few days back I only recognized their distinctive signature. I think that was part of why I was so taken aback by their accusations of lying and the like. Most editors are good about trying to understand the other side first and, even in disagreement, not assuming bad faith so quickly. Springee (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Staff incompetence strikes again. Springee's blatantly dishonest behaviour is one of the most disruptive I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This was yet another effort on Springee's part to weaponise ANI to censor critics, YET ANOTHER in which several people note Springee's pattern of bad faith, only for another editor to be sanctioned for pointing out a user's disruptive actions. El_C should be ashamed. Mjolnirpant's "incivility" is owing completely to the bad faith actions of Springee, whose actions are blatantly more toxic than telling the SEALION to shove off. 69.156.107.94 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I am duly shamed, seemingly random IP. El_C 01:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants warned, CR re-added to Andy Ngo

Holy smokes, MPants, you gotta tone it down, pronto. Because you are fast heading for another indef, which would be a sad conclusion to this. Beyond this, I'm re-adding Consensus required to Andy Ngo (will log), added by ST47 along with 1RR in July 7 2019, but supplanted removed by them in Jan 2021 July 9 2019 with EBRD due to "advise" —Awilley, I'm looking at thee!— because I doubt it's helping matters much (also, not reflected on the talk page notice). ST47, please do feel free to undo this AE revert on my part if you feel it to be in error. El_C 01:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Argh, naked 1RR, not EBRD. Apologies, Awilley, for my bad faith hallucinations. El_C 01:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Also fucked up the timeline. Looks like ST47 removed CR two days after having added it, so it was never actually on for this page. I can't read. El_C 01:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems a bit strange just to warn someone who has already been blocked for this exact reason, no? Is having already been blocked not enough of a warning to not do it again? And his comments in this thread suggest that he sees nothing wrong with his behavior and will probably continue to do it. Mlb96 (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I am duly shamed, now from all possible angles! El_C 05:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

:^/ Mlb96 (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm failing to see in what way MPants has been warned, unless you just mean "this message is a warning...", and I don't understand what effect you expect a warning to have when MPants has been warned about the same behaviour many times before, including recently, and has made no change. (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As long as we are on warnings, Springee should probably have a warning for sealioning, and PackMecEng definitely one for personal attacks on this board ("MPants has always had kind of a whiney and shit attitude"). I see warning PME as especially needful since she was page blocked from our sister board AN for a week a couple of months back (discussion here). I have warned her. Bishonen | tålk 09:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

Bish, ah, I missed that PackMecEng usual in the walls of textsts. That's an approve from me. It almost seems as if she will only defend those on the right while attacking those on the left — can you believe such a thing?! On the project, me feigning shock? As for Springee sealioning, I'll leave that in your capable hands and wish you safe travels with that uncharted journey... As for me [cue spam] ♫ I'm sailing away from my heartache, on a Riverboat fantasy... ♫ El_C 11:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait was the personal attack calling him whiney or the shitty attitude? PackMecEng (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

[NPA mode transform!] Mirror, mirror on the wall... El_C 12:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, just looking for your view on it. If you think its a problem El_C I can strike and re-word. PackMecEng (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is another example of a small group of right-wing editors weaponising process in order to reduce opposition to their political advocacy and attempts to whitewash wikipedia. In much the same way when we talk about palestinian response to Israeli aggression, the western world focuses on the *response* not the cause. Here you focus on MPants response to blatant and calculated provocation and not the cause. And the cause is editors sealioning, POV-pushing, misrepresenting sources, and yes, outright falsehoods. And again you focus on the response. Not the editors who when called out for lying, misrepresentation and general badgering, start running to ANI to get the obstacle to their whitewashing removed. We have had to deal with this over a range of topics with Trump supporters, gun nuts, anti-vaxxers, anti-abortionists, pseudoscience loons etc, and its amazing how similar the editors are over the years. And yet we still focus on the response to the relentless wave after wave of POV-editing and deliberate provocation rather than addressing the actual issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• In much the same way when we talk about palestinian response to Israeli aggression, the western world focuses on the *response* not the cause. Was gonna say something dumb about how we need Capt. Pronin to fight against the West again, but my spam quota has probably been filled for today (and for the next few decades). Anyway, not sure there's an actual solution to the perennial problem of civil pov pushing, save for using WP:DR, with a wing and a prayer. El_C 12:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• If this thread doesn't end with some sanction preventing Springee from further gaming and POV pushing, then I'll consider it complete failure of all involved to support WP's goals over the feel-good practice of scolding regular editors for not following proper etiquette.

This situation started with Springee pissing on my leg and telling me it was raining. The lies they told were blatant and obvious, and my response could have been phrased better, but was categorically accurate.

Of those who supported Springee here: we have Bilorv, who had earlier complained that I was uncivil due to my response to their own WP:GAMING and dishonesty. For anyone who needs a refresher on that: Bilorv made two comments on the talk page of an article about a type of joke, ignored the responses to them (except to complain that the joking tone which anyone could reasonably expect on that page was some sort of personal affront and arrogantly boast about their own credentials) then immediately started an RfC whose question was one all involved had already agreed on the answer to. When Bilorv got the same exact answer they'd already gotten before starting the RfC, Bilorv then used that answer to attempt to justify edit warring over a different (if related) issue. That issue itself only got as far as it did due to Bilorv's wild and unjustified (either by evidence or a rational argument) bare assertion that a notable entertainer's blog was actually run by an imposter. Note that this was in contrast to several lines of evidence I'd provided pertaining to the ownership of the blog.

PackMecEng recently had a run in with me at Talk:Fascism#AFD contents, where she got incredibly upset over her failure to understand what I meant by "the content is not verifiable in the source", and made repeated personal attacks and juvenile retorts over it as I tried to explain. The icing on that particular cake was her crowing about how "most people have no idea what [I am] ranting about", which was made as I was having a discussion with someone who very clearly knew damn well what I was saying (considering they said the same thing to Pack, in the form of accusing her of POV pushing, a very reasonable and well-evidenced accusation), about the actual contents of the sources.

Apuagasma's argument above is the funniest so far. Apua is upset because I said "if stating simple verifiable facts plainly offends anyone, they should be editing Conservapedia instead," and they took that as a personal affront and demanded an apology. That really serves more to illustrate Apua's POV than as a condemnation of me, because I doubt many editors disagree with the sentiment I expressed there. Their second comment accuses me of incivility because I responded by explaining clearly that (and why) me and tgeorgescu were not engaged in anti-theistic POV pushing, after Apua accused us of doing so. There's some incivility there, but it ain't mine.

As for The Owner of All: well, see my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_MjolnirPants.

There's a common thread here. FUD. Users making wildly untrue claims without evidence or logic behind them, then using those claims as a bludgeon to argue that WP should not report easily verifiable facts. In Bilorv's case, I have no doubt this had nothing to do with POV pushing, and was more of a knee-jerk hostile reaction to two editors not taking them as seriously as they hoped, but for Pack, Springee and TOA; their POV (which is at odds with reality and WP's documentation on countless subjects) is very clear, and their efforts very clearly made to advance that POV.

So if you want to warn me about toning it down: Gotcha. I understand, I don't even disagree. I could have handled it better. But if you think that's the end of the matter: You're dead wrong. We have a serious problem here in the form of editors who are deliberately attempting to undermine WP's mission to provide an accurate and verifiable encyclopedia, and turn it into a right-wing propaganda tool. If nobody's willing to look into that and do something about that, then I'm not sure what business you have being admins, as you're clearly not looking out for the best interests of this project.

And El C; Now you've been shamed from all possible angles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No boobs, no credits! El_C 12:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So basically WP:NOTTHEM? PackMecEng (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oof, PME, the point that seems to be lost on you is that you do much the same thing (albeit much more tersely). [Self-awareness mode engage!] El_C 13:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Go go gadget introspection!

Honestly, though, this is just par for the course for Pack and Springee and other right-wing POV pushers: they literally ignore the things that don't fit their narrative (I spoke about myself in my first and last paragraphs, and provided evidence of their malfeasant editing, here at ANI where they damn well know their own behavior is fair game) and focus on twisting what's left to suit their narrative even better.

This is a much worse problem than incivility, and even if it weren't, there's plenty of incivility to go around. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants incivility this started with you opening a talk page discussion that attacked any editors (not specifically me) who disagreed with you ([122], "...anyone who can't see [this] doesn't belong on this project"). You didn't start by asking why editors might disagree, and only getting frustrated after a failed good faith discussion. No, you assigned a cynical motive and reason and which allowed you to justify your admittedly uncivil behavior. You poisoned the discussion and are now complaining that it wasn't "good faith". You did the same to me in the BLPN Wakefield discussion where my arguments largely echo Masem's. Again, you decided uncivil, dismissive comments were appropriate. And here you are continuing the incivility with comments like, "The lies they told..." Where does CIVIL make these exceptions? Springee (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what? I don't really think I need to justify myself to someone who lies repeatedly to facilitate POV pushing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants, negative. If you can't help cutting off your nose to spite your face, best to say nothing. Final warning. El_C 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MPants, I was an editor at the center of the Gamergate situation, one fighting there for a more neutral approach on a nuanced subject, and was routinely being lumped into the numerous body of IP, new accounts, or recently revived accounts that were clearly meatpuppeting "gamergate supporters"; this lumping-in was simply because I did not want to take an absolute "gamergate is bad" approach but try to find a way to write per NPOV (hence why I debate strongly on such points at the current BLPN thread), and thus completely trying to treat my input in bad faith, which it was not. GG predicted the situation round many many right-wing-leaning figures today, in terms of meatpuppetry and constant IP/new editors demanding a neutrality that can never be achieved, but that doesn't mean those articles are in an untouchable state to be questioned for neutrality ourselves.

I know in the case of Springee they have been far more bold with how they edit than I have, but based on my experience from the GG situation, the fact that these comments place them and others mentioned into this class of "editors who are deliberately attempting to undermine WP's mission to provide an accurate and verifiable encyclopedia" is assuming bad faith on their part, compared to the typical body of IP and new editors that come to bitch about certain topics with no understanding of how our policies work. All these discussions are related to nuances of our core content policies, covering situations that, in my opinion, were not anticipated by the current state of social conflict in the world and the media. To that end, we are going to have disagreements, but this is expected, normal, and part of consensus building, so it should be expected editors are working in good faith here. Once you presume bad faith, that's where things break down, and only looking at the diffs given and convos around it, that's part of the issue is that you presume these editors are working bad faith.

That is not to say that Springee is not at fault here, I think they're operating a bit too bolding and fighting certain battles that have been settled already, that's towards a more WP:TE problem, and can contribute towards the appearance of working in bad faith, and they need work at steps to stop beating dead horse among other factors. But I see their general concern is the same issues related to neutrality (broadly) in how we cover contemporary people/groups on that side of the middle, which is a fair concern to be raising, and thus assuming they are purposely working against the purpose of the encyclopedia is not a helpful stance to start with. This is all meant as advice and nothing actionable yet from any admin standpoint. --Masem (t) 14:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, paragraph breaks = friend. El_C 14:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

added a few --Masem (t) 14:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, follow the diffs I provided at the top of this thread.

Springee claimed that two sources don't support content that had the same meaning and even used the same words as the sources themselves, for the purpose of avoiding an obviously-appropriate self-revert. I was assuming good faith right up until that point, past which, WP:PACT became the applicable essay. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Without getting too much into the content issue there, I think there's some validity to Springee's concern there as the sources use those words but not in that order nor in the same sentence, but I also think there's a middle ground for what that sentence should say given the sources. This is a similar concern at our discussion at BLPN, related to calling out people "conspiracy theorist" when the sourcing is not as readily there. But this is well beyond the ANI issue. Simply that automatically defaulting to bad faith may be blinding you to actual valid points that are raised - not that Springee's solutions are the correct ones either. --Masem (t) 16:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To that end, several editors, myself included, have been working to find that middle ground [123] <- Single brackets to avoid El_C's bracket block Springee (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, if you have some commentary on how one could reasonably assume that the Vox piece was (or the BFN, or the LA Times pieces were) asserting that Ngo provokes anything other than violence from Antifa (curious what that might be... Sick dance moves? Strongly-worded emails?), feel free to chime in at my talk page.

Who knows, maybe you can convince me that I was right from the get go, and this is less a case of Springee being deliberately dishonest (even though I'm very clearly not the only one who thinks so), and more a case of them being just completely clueless as I first suspected.

P.S. How different is that "middle ground" from what was originally in the article? The original claim was that "It has been contended that Ngo seeks to provoke left-wing violence." Compare that to the last substantive comment by Springee where he supports a wording because "It also makes it clear that he is directly provoking the left-wing activists to violence".

When there's one editor disagreeing, whether or not Ngo is provoking violence is "not supported" by the sources claiming that he's provoking violence. But now that Springee knows that there are eyes on their editing, it's important to "make clear that [Ngo] is directly provoking ... violence."

That doesn't evince an inability to understand the sources, or even a legitimate disagreement about the implications of what the sources say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Look, everyone, I hate to beat a dead ass, but disputes involving the major AE food groups (AP2, EE/BALKANS, ARBPIA, ARBIPA) have a much greater chance of resolving something (anything) at WP:AE. I used to sort of except AP2 from the mix, since there's tons of American editors so at least the subject matter will tend to be somewhat digestible to the average ANI reviewer. But probably not, either. The free-flowing, word-limitless threaded discussion at ANI just becomes too difficult to follow at some point. I suppose there's a not statistically-insignificant chance that someone may be driven by the heated nature of the conversation to do or say something truly egregious, but I wouldn't count on it. BTW, Springee, your OPs both at ANI and AE seem to always be way too lengthy. Please work on condensing, in general. El_C 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

El C If you're suggesting that expressing my well-evidenced view that Springee has engaged in blatant dishonesty for the sake of POV pushing is a personal attack, then we're going to be at odds here. As far as I'm concerned, that's a verifiable fact, and not one person has done so much as denied it, let alone made any case that it's not true. It's also not a view that's exclusive to me, as Bishonen, Only in death and Shibolethink have made clear.

If you're suggesting I change something about how I express that view, then I'm listening, but you'll need to be more specific. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants, I am telling you (not suggesting) to stop referring to "lying" and "dishonesty" on the part of editors in good standing. If you're trying to push me to sanction you so that you could fall on your sword, I'm un-happy to oblige, I guess. Otherwise, it's fine to express (and substantiate) that their reasoning is faulty. An article talk page is not the place to make a case for WP:TE. Hope that clears things up. El_C 14:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

El C, message received, but as best I can tell, we're not at article talk. Note that Springee's behavior in this very thread is more of the same: Shibolethink made a comment supporting my claims and accusing them of sealioning with plenty of diffs for evidence ([124]), to which Springee responded by (drum roll...) claiming no-one has supported my claims and demanding diffs ([125]). To be clear: I am explicitly asking for a boomerang here for POV pushing and blatant dishonesty. Also you can apparently add Dlthewave to the list of editors who agree with my claims here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not the sword, you say, MPants, while unsheathing your sword. That is special, I'll grant you that. But I do take your point that Springee's "It's telling that no editors have supported MPants claims" is also quite high on the bizarro scale... El_C 15:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Am I to interpret the limits of your response to mean you don't take issue with Springee demanding diffs in response to being shown diffs? Or their backfiring attempt to WP:CANVASS another editor? Or their demonstrably and obviously false statements about the sources to which I provided diffs earlier? Or the WP:STONEWALLing that Dlthewave brought up on another issue?

I mean, I'm still waiting for someone to even disagree with any of my claims about Springee, here, or elsewhere. Some editors here have very clearly agreed with them, but nobody's disputing them.

You've got multiple editors, including a fellow admin telling you that Springee's behavior is a serious problem, and you've got diffs to evince that. How is acting on that of lesser import than continuing to repeat a warning I've already acknowledged multiple times while threatening me with worse?

I'll tell you plainly: you're not accomplishing anything worthwhile by repeating yourself to me. I've already acknowledged that I should have been more circumspect, and said I would endeavor to do so in the future. All you're accomplishing by continuing to harp on this while ignoring what 5-6 other editors have said about Springee here is convincing me that you care more about my tone that this project's core principles. I'd rather not believe that about an admin, but when my beliefs are based on what I'm seeing from you, it's hard to deny them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll tell you plainly, too, MPants: I'm trying to reason with both of you. If it's not working, it's not working. If you wish to disparage me, I suppose that is an approach, as well. But I do contend that my record speaks for itself. And with that, I'll leave all of you to your own devices, for now. El_C 15:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disparaging you, I'm describing my own reaction to what you're saying here. As for trying to reason with "both of [us]", would you care to point me to where you've tried to reason with Springee? I seem to have missed it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No. El_C 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is literally the exact same behaviour you were reprimanded for by Girth Summit in the ANI discussion I opened in June, for instance in this diff: I thought I'd made my opinion clear that MPants' accusations of lying were unfair, unnecessary, and needed to stop. I gather Barkeep49 also thought such comments were uncivil. While I apologised in that discussion for the actions I took which were wrong, you never did so, instead continuing to accuse me of lying, and being inhumanly stupid or manipulative up until your last comment (which you've repeated above), and making thinly-veiled snipes about me even after I had fully disengaged. So I really don't understand what El_C thinks a warning does, or how someone can be "fast heading for an indef" when they've evidently done the same thing for months and had no consequences for it. (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, I made multiple efforts to smooth things over with you there, despite your own incredibly poor behavior. I'm really not interested in continuing to argue about it with you, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's entirely possible if I had the time to read through this thread I would be sanctioning MPants. I see El C has given a clear warning about behavior not to do, which echoes the concerns I had and warning I gave at the thread Bilorv mentions. That said I agree with MPants that they did try to smooth things over in the end and that effort was not accepted. I am glad to see that there is no desire to continue arguing about it here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

*Arb mic drop!* El_C 15:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know how I can be any clearer, Barkeep49, that I don't want to be pinged to this thread. I am watching and replying. You don't need to read through the thread. Reading the OP's initial set of diffs, such as [126], would suffice. — Bilorv (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I apologize as I missed the small parenthetical remark prior to composing my original reply. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Making accusations isn't uncivil, in fact lying is the uncivil behavior we should be looking into here. That said, MPants really needs to tone it down a notch and consider using more informative language (It's inaccurate to say X because ...) if they want to have a productive discussion.

We need to look at the entirety of the issue though. There's a long-running pattern of whitewashing at the Andy Ngo article, with several editors (including Springee) challenging any negative or critical content no matter how reliably sourced it may be. For example, here we have an extremely long discussion over whether we should use "widely accused" or "frequently accused", with the objecting editors making no apparent effort to suggest an alternative. This really reads like a filibuster to keep WP:DUE content out by preventing the discussion from reaching consensus. I'm worried that the current discussion may be headed the same direction. If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering. –dlthewave ☎ 14:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ooh, nuanced incivility, touché. Though probably undermined by the bold-is-hurting-my-eyes, the-goggles-do-nothing at the end. Guess whose patience has been strained? I am, of course, referring to Mlb96! El_C 14:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oh dear, you must've gotten a bad pair of anti-bold goggles. Is this easier on the eyes?

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

–dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Man, woke up with a killer headache this morning. It is not abating. El_C 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Huh? Why am I being referenced here? Did I do something wrong? Mlb96 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I guess the joke didn't land. El_C 23:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that my POV "is at odds with reality", please stop the false statements. The Non-Aggression Principle is definitely not at odds with reality. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• A short time back I commented at an RfC at Talk:Andy Ngo and it ended up on my watchlist. I checked back when I saw this discussion. I was absolutely shocked to see MPants' conduct there. And I am shocked again to see a few editors defending it here. Above an editor states, MPants is a seasoned editor,...they still understand not only the rules, but the spirit of the rules, better than most. That's all the more damning. I agree that they know enough to know WP:NPA#WHATIS: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views...Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden....Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Above they admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing edit: I do not see commitment to avoiding this specific behavior, saying things like, Yeah, I do. And you can wait for an apology all you like. Are people claiming MPants hasn't engaged in personal attacks? Or that they have but the other person deserved it? What policy permits that? Why should they be let off the hook yet again for this behavior? Quoting the NPA policy again: A pattern of hostility...can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks...may face serious consequences through arbitration, and of course non-arbitration consequences exist. There is absolutely a "pattern of hostility" from this editor against those they perceive as right wing. (Presumably they and their defenders perceive themselves as unaffected by political bias.) Such toxic behavior keeps people from engaging in the topic area, including ones on their own side. A useful thought experiment would be to imagine a random newish editor or one perceived as right-leaning acting this way. Would we each feel the same way? If all they get is a warning, I want to see a commitment from MPants not to make any reference to the supposed political views of other editors and not to disparage any other editors as lacking in intelligence or in any other way. This is frankly the bare minimum behavioral standard on Wikipedia and does not restrict meaningful debate, and there needs to be some progress on this issue so we don't keep ending up back here over and over. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Edit: Regarding changes above, see below. I have more accurately conveyed my feelings while correcting an overstatement. Fair is fair. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem in this situation, and situations like these, is that--a few vocal defenders aside--everybody else is basically thinking the same thing: this won't stop unless we totally ban MPants from the site. Everyone (almost) will agree it's bad, but bad enough to boot him from the site altogether? Most admins will be understandably reluctant to take such a step unilaterally against a veteran editor absent something truly egregious (and let's all recall that the last time, a comment along the lines of go f yourself with an object covered in hot sauce and sandpaper, was not universally considered egregious enough for a site ban, so there's our frame of reference for "egregious"). Most editors will understandably be reluctant to vote for a site ban for the same reasons (myself included). It's the pickle we're always in. Springee knows this, it comes across in the defeatist tone of his posts. MPants knows this too and is openly gambling on it (despite that the last time he gambled, he lost). What's to be done? I don't know, outsource it to the WMF via UCOC seems to be the best idea anyone has come up with so far, and that's kinda sad but true. Levivich 17:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Levivich, I really think you're drawing a consensus where one does not exist...taking tea leaves and making Monet's Water Lilies. a few vocal defenders aside--everybody else is basically thinking the same thing: this won't stop unless we totally ban MPants from the site. It certainly appears that you think that. But it does not appear that the patrolling admins or many other commenting editors here think that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    Hey crossroads, you were saying something about editors who are universally hostile to those with opposing political views? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

    No idea what this means. Is this an attack on Levivich, accusing me of hypocrisy, or what? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

    I'd like to think that the OG and largest Wikipedia is in fact not such a dumpster fire that we need the WMF to handle our internal affairs. Ultimately the bad behavior has to stop, that's my baseline. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  Above they admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing,

  There is absolutely a "pattern of hostility" from this editor against those they perceive as right wing.

  Both of those are demonstrably, trivially false claims.

  and there needs to be some progress on this issue so we don't keep ending up back here over and over. I love how some people love to point out that I've been frequently reported here, but they always decline to look into the results of those reports, or ask themselves any difficult questions about the editors who've reported me here.

  There's a whole lot of "indefinitely blocked per..." notes on the talk pages of editors who've reported me. And there's a whole lot of "nothing sanctionable here" in the results of the threads bearing my name, but god forbid you acknowledge that basic fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  If that "Above [you] admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing" is a "demonstrably, trivially false claim", then it is trivial for you to show me where you did so. I'll strike it if you find it. And as for your past reports? The results of past reports do not absolve subsequent behavior. And they haven't all been dismissed, as your block log testifies. Whether getting off the hook over and over again is an endorsement of your behavior or an indictment of Wikipedia's accountability systems is also debatable.

  Above I said, "I want to see a commitment from MPants not to make any reference to the supposed political views of other editors and not to disparage any other editors as lacking in intelligence or in any other way." You ignored this. Are you willing to commit to this? If not, why not? And if you can't, how is this not a claim that WP:NPA does not apply to you? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  If that "Above [you] admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing" is a "demonstrably, trivially false claim", Here's four times in this thread I did what you falsely claimed I've "refused" to do ([127], [128], [129], [130]).

  Also, Atsme and Masem are two right-wing editors whom I'm extremely fond of, and there are countless others with whom I take no issue at all, including Mr. Ernie and Power~enwiki. Politics doesn't bother me and never really has: I have quite a few conservative and libertarian beliefs myself. But you know what bothers me? POV pushing. Dishonesty. Gaming the system. Undermining this project's core principles.

  As for a further "commitment": No. I've already said what I had to say in that regards. I'm not kowtowing to demands that I beg forgiveness in a situation in which an editor who made an obvious attempt to undermine this project's goals is walking away without so much as a warning. That's complete bullshit.

  I responded poorly to some obvious POV pushing, and the result is a bunch of editors whining about my tone and pretending that there's nothing more to worry about here, meanwhile me and several others keep pointing to the giant elephant in the room, screaming "pachyderm!" while you and the rest of that ilk plug your ears.

  Fuck that nonsense. I care more about this project than I do about my block log, and I've already proven that I'll happily take a block if it means I can do something to remove a bad faith actor from our roster of editors. If me continuing to argue for sanctions against Springee here bothers you, then I'd suggest you reflect on what's really more important; our ability to accurately document the subjects of our articles, or your personal feelings about etiquette? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  Add me to the list of users who agree that at least a "warning" boomerang would justified here. After finding this discussion, I have just spent hours catching up on the last six months of the Andy Ngo Talk page, and the POV pushing pattern is obvious. It's "assume good faith", AGF, and not "assume good faith and keep the assumption up even long after it has been refuted", AGDAKTAUELAIHBR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Moved by me from section below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Just edit conflicted with Tryptofish Gosh - this is a long thread. Don't have time to read it all in detail, responding to the ping above. I will say this though: MPants at work, if you come to the conclusion that someone is filibustering, stonewalling, being intentionally obtuse, flat-out lying, generally editing tendentious, there are things that you can do about that, whether that's getting more opinions on the content matter, or reporting the other editor at an appropriate noticeboard. What you shouldn't do is accuse them of lying on an article talk page - we tell newbs that all the time, they are for discussing content, not contributors or their behaviour.

I can't think of a situation where calling someone a liar is going to be productive in any way. They're very unlikely to say 'ah, shit, you got me, have it your way'. If you're wrong, and they are not lying, they will justly be upset and get angry, and productive discussion will become impossible. If you are right, and they are lying, they will be only too delighted that you have handed them a stick to beat you with. I think it would be helpful if you were to accept that calling someone a liar on an article talk page isn't appropriate even if you know for a fact that they are lying, and commit not to doing that again. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, you have once again managed to phrase something in the most reasonable way I've seen, in a thoroughly unreasonable situation. If you look at my response to Crossroads above, you'll see where I highlighted four instances in which I've already acknowledged that I went too far, and I'm not distancing myself from that now.

But what I'm continuing to do here is to argue for a boomerang. I've provided diffs that show very clearly that Springee was engaged in bad-faith behavior, and so far, Bishonen is the only admin to acknowledge that, despite several other users agreeing with me. If it'll help, I'll re-post the diffs (and provide others that evince a long-term problem with POV pushing). I just want an admin to do something that improves this project because frankly, I knew before this thread had started that I needed to tone down my response to Springee. If all that comes of this is a focus entirely upon my behavior, then this thread has been a giant waste of time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not warranted. Making talk page arguments that some disagree with isn't sanctionable, even if it is thought that these align with a certain POV. I've seen this stuff before. POV pushing as an offense requires actual misbehavior, and I haven't seen that above or in the past. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You've seen editors claim that a source that says X doesn't support the claim X in order to whitewash a disreputable figure, and you don't take any issue with that, or consider it POV pushing? Wow. That's a shockingly naïve position to take, but you're entitled to your views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Even single words can be very important, per MOS:WTW. There can also be good faith disagreements over what a source is actually saying. Perhaps a source attributes a claim rather than saying it in their own voice. So must we, then. The claim that is allegedly supported could be too strongly worded. Or the sources used for it can be less reliable for the subject (like, why are people trying to cite music and pop culture magazines on political topics). I see no reason to impute bad faith and I'm not letting myself get sidetracked here further. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• If you think that someone is intentionally misrepresenting the sources or otherwise arguing tendentiously, and you can prove that, take it to WP:AE and lay out a careful, measured case there - as El_C pointed out above, the entire AP2 topic area is under DS. I don't think anything further constructive is going to come out of this mess of an ANI discussion at this point (and FWIW at least one of the other editors involved has been warned, so it's already boomeranged.) Nobody is going to read or be able to follow this massive discussion at this point unless they're already involved. --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Amid this wall of text, I'd like to quote some portions of MPants' comments in this section:

• "I've already acknowledged that I should have been more circumspect, and said I would endeavor to do so in the future."
• "Bilorv, I made multiple efforts to smooth things over with you there..."
• "I responded poorly to some obvious POV pushing..."
• "...frankly, I knew before this thread had started that I needed to tone down my response to Springee."

I fully acknowledge that I am WP:Cherrypicking those quotes, and they each appear within their own contexts. No question. But, whether or not MPants has it in him to point it out, I think these are things that should not be ignored. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Enough

At this point, this has become one of those ANI walls of text that are visible from outer space. I thank El C for attempting to wrap this up, and regret that it didn't work.

It's time for both MPants and his accusers to stop trying to get the WP:LASTWORD.

There's an awful lot of if an ANI thread stays open long enough, every editor with a grudge will show up going on here. What we have, in brief, are a lot of people (note: not everyone) who have acted suboptimally. So there are too many accusations here (note: not all of them) that are made with unclean hands.

But, that said, MPants, you really need to dial it down. El C "warned" you in plain English, and was right to do so. If you don't want to listen to him, then please listen to me. You are not helping your case by trying to refute every single thing directed at you. You are responsible for some of this, even if some others are even more so. WP:2WRONGS applies here. I know you have personal reasons that can make it harder for you to judge the emotional content of comments, but please hear me when I say that you are accumulating a history that has the potential to lead to another indef – even though we are not there now. If you find yourself editing in topics where the conflicts make you angry, or stressed, or fed up with other editors, then it's time to edit in more peaceful areas – that's something I've been learning about myself from my own personal experience.

MPants, please just acknowledge that you can, and should, and will, do better going forward. You don't have to claim that you have always been right. Acknowledge that there are concerns, and let us all move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish's sentiment about the overlong subsection above, but I feel that we're not yet done here. Here's why: MPants has said to me things like that you should go edit conservapedia [131] and (after a quite reasonable reply to this [132]) that if you don't care to be directed to conservapedia, then perhaps you should stop arguing as if you better belong there [...] I've seen more than one long-term, experienced editors indeffed over their inability to neutrally interpret sources. [133] On an earlier occasion, he also said things like that You've undermined your own position by descending to these pre-packaged, easily-debunked, canned arguments that one can find on any creationist website, complete with detailed instructions on their use and that your continued attempts to make it through emotional rhetoric is bordering on disruption [134].

This is not "playing fast and loose with sarcasm" (as some have suggested above), but plain personal attacks, and I have expressed my wish for this to stop at this ANI thread.

MPants response [135]: Apuagasma's argument above is the funniest so far and There's some incivility there, but it ain't mine. His rationale for this response is that my indignation serves more to illustrate Apua's POV than as a condemnation of me, because I doubt many editors disagree with the sentiment I expressed there.

Indeed, many in the long thread above have claimed that MPants only lashes out against POV-pushers, Trump supporters, pseudoscience loons, etc. I cannot help but feel that letting him claim that he can say to me what he said because I am pushing pseudoscience or creationist nonsense, amounts to a confirmation by the community that this is indeed likely to be the case. I mean, of course those who are familiar with my edits will know better (and I invite everyone to examine the context in which MPants said those things, and/or ask me about it at my talk), but it still feels like a personal smear that should not be allowed to pass.

If he just thinks it's funny and that it's all just due to my POV then there is no guarantee at all that this will stop, rather the opposite. I think that if his attitude about this does not change right here on this ANI thread, some kind of more forceful action must be taken. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that he should not have called what you said "funny", and I don't think that he should have personalized it at all. But at the same time, I did note just above the section break that he has been acknowledging more than what some of his critics are saying he has. Like you, I wish he would acknowledge this more definitively, but I also think that you may be too determined to get him to specifically acknowledge you. I think that if everyone keeps trying to get the WP:LASTWORD, all that will happen is that uninvolved editors will stop paying any attention to this thread. But yes, I'd like to see MPants make it clearer that he hears what people are telling him here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been reluctant to say anything for exactly that WP:LASTWORD reason (it's a temptation that I know I'm weak to), but I think MPants' last response to Apuagasma in one of the threads linked above was fairly mature and conciliatory: In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that the battleground mentality that has resulted in literally every single imposition of discretionary sanctions on a topic originated with two editors calling each other biased. [...] Now that that's said, I'd like to apologize for the tone I took the first time I addressed this. I should have been more decorous in responding, explaining myself more fully and explaining that I'm still willing to discuss any other topic. I most likely gave off a much more heated impression than was true, owing to my brevity and emphatic delivery, and that's not the case. [136]. That seems about as good a conclusion to a heated spat as I've seen in these parts. Other than that, I think Tryptofish's latest comment expresses my thoughts as well as I could. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I also spent some time looking at the Shiatsu talk page discussion, and while I don't want to get bogged down in the content aspects here, it does look to me like there were multiple editors on both "sides" speaking heatedly at one another. I think Apuagasma was consistently polite, but there were multiple editors strongly criticizing some of Apuagasma's points, so it's really not like MPants was the only one doing that. It's just that MPants is the only one named as the target of this ANI. I do think the quote found by XOR'easter is very significant here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: thanks for looking into that. Yes, it was a difficult discussion, and actually I have said some things there (to other editors) that I now regret, but no one there posted anything even approaching MPants' tone. There's a difference between somewhat heated and outright personal attack, and only MPants crossed that line (or rather, made a run and took a big leap over it).

@XOR'easter: true, but there was also another editor in that discussion to whom MPants had said that undermining the widely accepted dating- absolutely reeks of fundamentalist bias, and is a textbook example of the wedge strategy, popularized in a different topic that fundamentalists also get up in arms about [137], who responded to the conciliatory post you just quoted with I didn't appreciate the references to fundamentalist bias, but apology accepted. [138] Guess what MPants' response to this editor was? I wasn't apologizing to, or even speaking to you. [139]. Crossroads already quoted the relevant portions from what constitutes a WP:PA: using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing and accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. These clearly apply to all the diffs I've given. Since he apologized at least to me, I've been at (very) good terms with him during the past months. But just here in this thread he said that for his latest lash-out I can wait for an apology all I want. I appreciate that this refusal is largely because of the context here, but I'm really quite sure that you as well as Tryptofish would not be saying what you are if you were in my position, or in the position of those to whom MPants is likely to lash out again in the future if something is not done. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Please note that my user name is spelled Apaugasma (though Apau is fine too).

If it will be of any benefit (I am not sure), I want to endorse Tryptofish's advice to MjolnirPants at the beginning of this subsectuon. MPants, if you are actually correct about what is best for this encyclopedia, then you will be most effective by advocating your points calmly, clearly and referring back constantly to policies, guidelines and what high quality reliable sources say about these issues. Sarcasm, hostility, bitterness and a confrontational tone are counterproductive. That tone hurts your case. It does not help it at all. How can you advocate for your view of what is best for the encyclopedia if you are again indefinitely blocked? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, you have made your points. Repeating them over and over does not make them more persuasive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't feel Apaugasma's points were repetitive. The points, quotes, and diffs in this section were new and directly in response to others' comments above. Levivich 02:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what, I think you're both right! Cullen's point is well-taken, and Levivich's support much appreciated :-) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the letter-transposition; I think I was looking at a misspelled instance, and my fingers just copied it. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No, seriously, enough

On second thought, let’s not go to ANI. ‘Tis a silly place. jps (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Like. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! El_C 08:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is, indeed, no basis for a system of government. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Aquatic? No need to insult fishes here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"Help, I'm being oppressed..." - jc37 23:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Nor the lake ladies who sleep with them, verily. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Rctgamer3

Some administrator (other than Xezbeth) could review the contributions of the user:Rctgamer3, whose histories of disruptive and highly disturbed editions on articles related to Japanese voice actors1, while correcting the date that the veteran actress debuted in the 30s when she was born, he insists on reversing Masako Nozawa's debut, which according to the summaries of the page's editions that I was eliminating the content, merging occupations and above all 234567, reversed numerous times on Yuki Kaji's article for which someone added his facet as an actor whose career is not notable to have such appearances in series and live-action movies, so take it away, but what happens? Rctgamer3 reverted it several times 8910 without an IP having committed another type of vandalism.

In short, it is not the first time that an editor like this has a disruptive behavior towards IPs violating the WP:3RR and WP:POINT but I am reflecting now that it is not the same that another IP has removed an occupational term (eg actor and voice actor) something that was out of context and the truth is that I realized that these two occupations do not go in the introduction of the paragraph, infoboxes and above all, short descriptions and at the end of this, I do not see the rule that says something about the separate initial sentences, nor was the idea of ​how the hell I enter the data in the same short description outside of Wikipedia so as not to lengthen so many occupations. 148.101.34.204 (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The date change referenced was completely unsourced. I'm not sure if you're the same IP user as the previous person who wrote it on Yuki Kaji but given the fact that all of their credits start in the 60's makes a year's active date from her third birth year feel /very/ out of place. I've reverted a handful of edits on Yuki Kaji and Masako Nozawa on date changes solely because no sources/refs for this date were provided, which i have warned the individual IP-users about on their talk pages. As for those voice actor pages; there's WP:BOLD, but changing crucial points about several persons is a no-go. (Example: A person whose profession almost solely entails voice acting, was re-labeled as primarily being another minor profession). Given the amount of edits done (50-100) by various IP's, I expected at least some consensus beforehand. Even during the ongoing revisions by various IP-users, I've asked those users to discuss this, yet nothing of the sort ensued, nor did most of those edit utilize edit summaries. I feel like I've done nothing wrong. By the way, I have no/zero intention of having a large number of biography pages in my watchlist. It's just that one person under various IP addresses has a narrow view of how the pages should be formatted which both me and Xezbeth seem to think that the edits by these anonymous users entail edit warring/vandalism. Highly relevant incident here: 1. I'm all for reaching a good resolution/consensus on the subject Rctgamer3 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you have news sources on Masako Nozawa's career, just leave an edit summary by passing you the necessary link through the Japanese Wikipedia1 before Xezbeth reverses two or three times23 to avoid having a conflict as to what she did not comply with the WP:SDDATES, as I said before, someone added Yuki Kaji's facet as an actor in the introduction of the paragraph to pretend that he has a minimum of 6 appearances in series and 1 live action film below his filmography, so that I do not agree with your position if my edition was not to your liking.

Let's go in parts to the five articles that you reversed incorrectly:

• First, when editing Kotono Mitsuishi's page, I had suggested that I was going to leave a little editing summary about the term saying "actor covers her work as a voice actress", but I already saw where I was wrong.1

• Second, Karen Miyama, when separating the same occupations has the largest number of drama series and movies in real life, but also do not leave the summary of editions of it.2

• Third, Iori Nomizu of course, after you and Xezbeth reverted it several times without me leaving a summary and there is one thing for which I also edited in Wikidata which I abide by the rules on short descriptions, but sometimes I make mistakes like that. 34.4

• Fourth, Nene Hieda, repeatedly removed the term singer because it is not remarkable, nor was it added news references about her debut.4

• Fifth, and speaking of Riho Iida I would have already improved the infobox, opening sentences, adding short descriptions and ordering the categories in the section below, but in your case you reversed it several times, if I have not done anything.5

• Sixth, Shun Oguri as he had left a summary before, his filmography has more than 15 notable anime films so his profession as an actor and voice actor are different.6

• Seventh, the idea of ​​removing Momoyo Koyama's second occupation came to my mind when I realized that she has more than 5 appearances in series and live-action movies, in addition to anime and video games, so I also consider that in my opinion, the intention was to separate their profession are different from what it says in summaries of previous editions.7

• Eighth, and to finish, about Takahiro Itō (may he rest in peace) as I left in the edition summary before Xezbeth and you reversed it before blocking me, his filmography has a minimum of 3 series and live action movies, dubbing of four foreign series and films and an anime series, so it was already necessary for them to be translated through the aforementioned Japanese Wikipedia. 8

That was it, I just said this because you and Xezbeth do not comply with what has been applied inside and outside Wikipedia so that they do not extend so many occupations to what I have followed the uses of WP:BLPs and MOS:FIRST, and tell me something, how do you think that my contributions that I have made about Japanese voice actors are non-constructive for you? 179.52.208.177 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

User:WAYLON JENNINGS FAN

WAYLON JENNINGS FAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned more than enough about adding unsourced genres but simply ignores warnings. I don't think this falls strictly under WP:VD but it is certainly disruptive. Some administrative intervention will be appreciated, even if only by issuing a firm warning. --Muhandes (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh. I keep forgetting that WP:VD is the top WP shorthand for the Vandalism policy (had to click). That's unfortunate, yet also quite appropriate... [I'm helping!] Anyway, indef p-block from the mainspace applied. El_C 11:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

After all VD is for everybody... Also good block, beat me to it for the indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Rick, I seriously half-expected it to link to some semi-humor PG-13 essay.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 13:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I always thought that shorthand was intentional. Thanks for the quick response. --Muhandes (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Likely was, Muhandes. I'm probably just a bit slow (many would rightly agree!). Anyway, glad I was able to help. El_C 15:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bouvet Island needs vandalism protection

The small paragraph about the annexation of the west coast was vandalized and wrongly reverted. Despite good sources, including a RAND Corporation’s (RANDnext) paper. Could some please protect that article? Thanks. 2A01:598:A803:E5ED:D0CB:B4A4:B17C:16DF (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Protection requests should go to WP:RFPP, but I can tell you now it's not going to happen for a single instance of vandalism. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the revert in question was vandalism. And you should discuss such things with the other editor first before making accusations of vandalism here. Also when making such accusation here, you need to inform the other editor on their talk page. Paul August ☎ 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

OP temporarily sock-blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

IP 212.85.174.201

• 212.85.174.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi. Please can someone assist with this IP's edits? They keep removing sourced content regarding dates of death across three articles relating to Yugoslav sportspeople (one, two, three). Per their talkpage, they state they are correct and are using the Slovenian versions of the pages as a source. Although, checking those pages, only one of them has a date of death, which is also unsourced. Now they are stating that if they are blocked, that "I will demand Arbcom". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. It is great that the issue has been brough up here. I deal with yugoslav sports history in my professional life and I was surprised too see that the three local well known pre-war cyclists had wrong basic information about them in the English Wikipedia. I tried to correct it but then this user came with his uncooperative and rude remarks and removed all the correct content and added back the wrong info from some unexisting "sports reference" webpage. I would like to have a normal peacful discussion to correct the information as I believe it is in the best interest of everyone that Wikiepdia has the correct information available to the public. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor: you do appear to be edit warring to force unsourced information onto the page. Where are you getting your information from? Slovenian Wikipedia is not a reliable source (neither is English Wikipedia - they're both user-generated, and I'm afraid that your personal knowledge and expertise is also not sufficient - we need a reliable, published source. It's OK for it to be in Slovenian (English-language sources are preferred, but not mandatory). Please provide sources for the information, or remove it until you can do so. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked 212.85.174.201 from article space until they provide some sources and not another Wiki. If they come up with some please unblock. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. I don't speak Slovenian, but I'm happy to help incorporate any WP:RS to any of these articles, if they surface. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have no sources in English, but there are sources in Slovenian. I am putting them here because I was blocked and cannot edit the articles. Please put them into the articles:

• Josip Šolar:

Obituary and an article: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-ANI7Q5EW/ Tombstone: https://grobovi.zale.si/sl/Home/GetGravePicture?uId=8cff2826-c246-4b31-ae1a-88f8d5b43efd

• Franc Gartner:

article: http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-G7D8KRG4 more articles when he died: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-L9QWYMRK/ dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-HSPTRI7L/

• Ivan Valant:

article and picture in Jesenice museum: http://www.gmj.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/kviz-2019-iii-srednja-ola-konna-verzija.pdf obituary: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-AW59IIJ3/ also mentioned: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-6QJ7I2OW/ (his bike company still exists, now run by his grandson, you can contact him if you do not believe me info@valy-ing.si) All information is 100% correct. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts - just making sure you've seen the links from the IP editor above. I had a look at the first one, it's a newspaper dated 1957, which does indeed carry an obituary for Josip Solar on page 8. I ran the first sentence, which read "Se v zreli dobi je po hudi bolezni umri eden najboljsin slovenskih kolesarjev – Joca Solar" through Google translate, which gave me "One of the best Slovenian cyclists, Joca Solar, dies in adulthood after a serious illness." Seems legit, the database website might have this wrong. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The pages have still not changed. Less than two minutes were needed to revert my changes and then to block me, but now when I again presented proofs nothing happens. It makes me sad as I get the feeling that there is no genuine will to partiticipate and provide proper encyclopedic information about this topic. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You were blocked from editing those pages because you were edit warring, and because you were repeatedly making changes without providing sources. You are not blocked from editing the articles' talk pages: you could go there now, and make an edit request, citing these sources and indicating what changes should be made based on them. (It would help the other editors if you were able to provide a bit of detail on where to find the information in those sources - the first link above is 8 pages long, and I couldn't find a way to search the text: it took me quite a while to find Solar's obituary, and to put the first sentence through Google translate.) Girth Summit _(blether) 09:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Noone excpet the other user in question watches those pages anyway and he already saw the sources heere. So just correct the information, this the oly thing that I am interested in. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Girthy. I'll work with the IP on their talkpage to find the exact page in each newspaper source they've provided, and update all three pages during the day. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

They provided sources so I've unblocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter's blocks of Volunteer Marek and GCB

Please see here and here. Ymblanter has blocked Marek and GCB for edit warring, despite the editor in question not being eligible to edit on the topic in question as they are way below the 500/30 threshold. Which is *specifically* exempt from edit warring. If they arnt unblocked with either an apology (I dont care who apologises, I doubt Ymblanter will proffer one themself) the next step will be ARBCOM to request Ymblanter's tools are removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I got enough baid faith towards myself today, and, in addition, OID was very clear for many years that they want my tools removed does not matter what, but I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I want your tools removed. You lack sufficient knowledge to use them properly and it results in abuse. The restrictions (and where edit warring doesnt apply) around 500/30 editing requirements are very very clear and an admin should be well aware of when they do and do not apply. You clearly do not. I am willing to let it go once again if you apologise to both Marek and GCB and lift the blocks. Or another admin does, but this blatant incompetence when it comes to basic knowledge of how a topic restriction works should not continue. 'Bad faith' in this context by the way would be assuming that you made a bad block, realised it when someone pointed out the 500/30 requirement, and decided to cover it up by blocking the editor who complained. That would be assuming bad faith. I am granting you the more likely explanation that you acted out of ignorance rather than maliciousness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I support an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblock sooner than later please. but I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts. Any admin who can't be bothered to read WP:3RRNO has got problems. MarnetteD|Talk 20:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The 500/30 requirement is not listed at WP:3RRNO. PackMecEng (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: True, although BANEX is which would seem to cover this as well - but you're right the part should be copied over from WP:GS [140]. As I stated on my talk page, I intend to file a request for clarification with ArbCom on the wording of the restriction. Volunteer Marek 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah looks like it could use an update. I would probably support that! PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This should go straight to ARBCOM for a de-sysop, period.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The exemption is for the articles, this is not an article. The arbcom was very clear by writing "articles" rather than "pages", and had a good reason for this, since otherwise revert of discussions from talk pages, for example, would be exempt from 3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I am too old for this. I completely disagree with the unblock, but I do not want to get to a hospital again. I will unblock. Next time, anybody starts talking about lack of admin, lack of gut, inability to look into difficult cases, remember this case, please. If I am still alive, I will be around to remind you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end, Did you discuss extensively with Ymblanter before bringing this here? ANI's are literally the last option if the plethora of trying to use other venues to settle differences and queries amicably are exhausted. Furthermore I see the mention of ARBCOM?? Come on! Now that’s rather uncalled for and don’t you think that’s rather harsh and comes off as “threatening” ? Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, as Ymblanter is never open to reasoned discussion when they make an obviously wrong action, and their histrionics directly above should give you a decent idea of what their concept of appropriate behaviour is. They already had sufficient discussion on the talkpages of both Marek and GCD and had declined to unblock on the request of another admin. So yes, the appropriate place is ANI for an ongoing incident that needs a quick resolution. And yes, the consequences of their actions being unresolved would be Arbcom, because said earlier discussion had already failed to get them to see reason. There are almost zero actions an ordinary editor can take. Laying out the consequences of your actions may come across as threatening, but then when you treat people like shit, do not expect to get the kid gloves in return. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end, so in summary do you believe you both can’t resolve this amicably? I’m pained when genuine and hardworking very productive editors like yourself and Ymblanter have disputes, honestly it is very much saddening. Celestina007 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 Just a note that while it is usually best practice to discuss things before taking them here, whatever - if any - issues OID and YMB have, an unjust block should be dealt with ASAP since the real victims here is an editor (editors) who got unjustly blocked. It would be totally unfair for them to wait days for action (if any) while this was limited to a talk page discussion which could be simply ignored for days or stalled or whatever (no bad faith assumed, simply noting admins can block someone and then be afk for some time, for example). As a review of an admin's action that requires possibly urgent action (unblock) it was totally right for OID to bring this here, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus, Yes, I understand that part, the part that has me worried is Only in death does duty end saying he wants Ymblanter to lose their admin bits (note that this are both very productive editors) and the mention of ARBCOM also is upsetting (to me) It’s saddening when productive editors are at loggerheads. Furthermore I don’t think the mention of ARBCOM was necessary, more often than not I think we both can predict accurately what the verdict would be if a case was to be accepted. @Ymblanter, if you can, please just apologize to the relevant parties and to OID especially. We regular editors all make mistakes, and sysops do too as we are all human in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 I think that (referring to "Ymblanter, if you can, please just apologize to the relevant parties") would be the best solution. There is no need for any community actions or sanctions if one acknowledges their mistake and apologizes, to be human is to err. What does worries me, however, is that the comments I've seen from Ymblanter suggests that they don't view their actions as wrong. Not being able to admit one has made a mistake and apologize for it is worrisome in any editor, and doubly so in admin, who has the power to block and delete. With power comes responsibility and the need to be responsible. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that Only in death's behavior has been nothing short of appalling itself. They have taken every opportunity to insult Ymblanter and be as uncivil as humanly possible, with their kindest contribution to this report being, "I am granting you the more likely explanation that you acted out of ignorance rather than maliciousness". Ymblanter's blocks were poorly conducted, yet that is no excuse for an editor to be personally vindictive. BOTTO _(T•C) 17:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Botto, I haven't had time to review OID's behavior, although there is undeniably a tension between those editors, to say the least. Nonetheless, "two wrongs don't make a right"; if you feel OID's behavior merits review, I'd suggest a new section or thread; here we are talking about Ymblanter's blocking of two editors and aftermath. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to get to a hospital again and If I am still alive are extremely alarming. I encourage a break - participating in Wikipedia should never provoke such fearful comments. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Well, we got most of the way there, but the unblock rationale was really unacceptable ("I want to stay alive"). Does anyone mind if I block each of them for 1 second, making clear they were unblocked because the block was against policy, not because Ymblanter wanted to "stay alive"? Especially, @Volunteer Marek: and @GizzyCatBella:, would you prefer such a notice in your block log? It's trading off clarifying you shouldn't have been blocked for an incrementally longer block log. I won't put such a note in your block logs if you don't want it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I'm fine with it. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: - I’m also fine with it. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Since you're unblocked, there's no need to immediately provide this note, so I'll wait until tomorrow if that's OK. That will give Ymblanter a chance to do it themselves, or if not, will provide a more complete ANI discussion for me to link to, or will provide a chance for someone to point out I've completely misunderstood the situation and it wouldn't be appropriate. And it gives me time to grill some steaks (and then eat them), which I've been looking forward to all day. Not trying to weasel out of anything; I'm just postponing until tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That's fine too. Bon apetit. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam I concur that the unblock rationale is unacceptable; in fact I suggest it should be WP:OVERSIGHTed since it can even create a mistaken impression death threats were involved or such. While I honestly haven't interacted with or reviewed other actions by the blocking admin, anyone who makes a bad block and then an unblock with such an edit summary is certainly ripe for having their admin status scrutinized (with a nod to the de-sysop comments above). Anyway, I also support your idea of a re-un-block which a good rationale (ideally a link to this discussion when it is archived, but that may require waiting for this to be closed and archived? It probably would be most informative). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked and unblocked VM and GCB adding a proper rationale.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, can we have a diff for the edit(s) that resulted in the block(s) please? GiantSnowman 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently it is here. CGB was blocked after their only revert, VM was blocked after 4 reverts of a sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow. No warnings to either party at all before 3RR was breached? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Has the account been blocked as a sock? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I cant see the point tbh. Its clearly either one of the banned users in relation to Poland/WW2/Jews (which isnt a long list), or a clueless IP who just doesnt know they cant edit on the topic. Marek made it clear in the edit summaries that the editor was prohibited, and given the content, its almost certainly one of the Jewish anti-Polish editors. They will be back somewhere else soon enough. Regardless, the editor fails 500/30 for editing in a restricted area and so can be reverted on sight exempt from edit-warring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so warnings are not even appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think a warning was required to at least signal that an administrator felt that the 500/30 exemption didn't apply because it is Wikipedia-space rather than article-space in which the reverts were being made. That would provide an opportunity for one of the editors to cease reverting, seek clarification if required and/or justify the basis of the block. The clear absence of that was what made this review open and shut. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the relevant language from Wikipedia:General sanctions that Volunteer Marek was relying on Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. If this information page is accurate, then Ymblanter is incorrect when they wrote The exemption is for the articles, this is not an article. As I read the language, the only place where an editor who does not meet the 30/500 threshold can edit about topics such as this is on article talk pages, and nowhere else on the project. Accordingly, Volunteer Marek was correct to revert these edits which were adding Warsaw concentration camp to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia since that editor is not permitted to do so according to the information page about General sanctions. If the information page is in error, it should be corrected promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A summary of this language should probably be added to WP:3RRNO, which currently makes no mention of an exception for the 30/500 rule. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• The 500/30 restriction stems from an arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#500/30_restriction, added as a result of this motion. The context behind the ARCA was sockpuppetry, and the reverted account is said to be a sock (above), apparently. The commenting arbs also said "articles" specifically. I think this should be kicked to the Committee at WP:ARCA, to ask whether the remedy only apply to articles or if it applies to all namespaces. ArbCom rulings are one place where language and precision matters, and this one genuinely seems unclear. (Of course, this point is separate from whether the editors should've been blocked for it, and due to the very small distinction, and given that the editors gave their rationale in the edit summary, I think the admin should've realised there was an ambiguity here and ideally decided to get it cleared up, or at worst went the warning route rather than the block route.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • More: I took a peek to check what the precedent from other arb cases is. The only other arbitration case to authorise 500/30 is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4, which used an entirely different structure to its general sanctions remedies than the usual case. That one indeed applies in all namespaces, but it explicitly says so (edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think a clarification from ArbCom would be useful here. Volunteer Marek 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I have asked for clarification at ARCA. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Some may be wondering what Ymblanter was talking about when he mentioned tag-teaming by GCB and VM. Running Editor Interaction Analyser (Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella) lists the following pages that both VM and GCB edited on the same day (collapsed due to length):

I make no comment about whether or not 30/500 applies to that page/that content, but I will say generally that while I think Ymblanter's concerns are well-founded (per the above), a warning first would have been better than straight to a block. (And I hope he feels better soon.) Levivich 02:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Dude. As you very very very well know, both GCB and myself have been targeted with some very odious harassment (including violent threats against my family etc) by THE VERY SAME EDITOR. And then by his socks. Since you defended that editor over the course of the ArbCom case which led to his topic ban, and then participated extensively in the aftermath of that ArbCom case which led to his global ban, you are FULLY AWARE of the background here and cannot plead ignorance. Which means that YOU KNOW there's a very good reason why I would look at GCB's edits and talk page and why she would most likely do the same. It's the SAME SOCKS showing up on articles we both edits. Yet here you are pretending as if there's something nefarious going on BY THE EDITORS WHO HAVE BEEN TARGETS OF ABUSE. Way to enable abusers and blame the victims Levivich. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And if you're gonna try to play that game, then here you go [141]. Wanna explain that one? Volunteer Marek 06:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So GCB was blocked over one revert, but Kowkaw, the editor who made three reverts while edit-warring with VM, wasn't even warned? One side of this edit war was punished harshly while the side that arguably wasn't supposed to touch the page in the first place was completely ignored. And are we supposed to believe that someone who made a dozen edits almost a year ago just randomly reappeared, happened to notice this behind-the-scenes dispute, and jumped in with nothing but the purest of intentions? Why on earth was Ymblanter apparently fine with all of that? This situation was handled poorly, and the blocking admin's responses here do little to bolster confidence in their decision-making. I'm particularly annoyed with this remark: I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts. The OP was not suggesting that some users should be generally exempt from blocks; he was arguing that any user who did what VM did in this particular situation should have been exempt from a block. Ymblanter's reply there is a strawman at best and gaslighting at worst. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lepricavark Good point. I would very much like to hear Ymblanter's explanation on why they have taken no action whatsoever towards Kowkaw? That new account is obviously very suspicious (per WP:DUCK given the extensive socking in this TA that led to 30/500 and like). Blocking established editors while ignoring a likely sock raises further question's about once competency as an admin, to say it bluntly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to make this call. I am not a CU, and I will now stay clear from any DUCK blocks probably for years ahead.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I am not saying you should have blocked Kowkaw; it's perfectly excusable not to be knowledgeable about the socks and likely masters in this TA. What I don't understand is, however, why you felt that VM and GCB deserve blocks and Kowkaw does not? Weren't they "edit waring" equally? Why block just the established editors and let the newbie scoff-free, without even a warning? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The whole story started with VM and GCB reverting users in good standing, not Kowkaw. I actually warned VM to stop edit-warring before Kowkaw even showed up, but they went on to four reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Your timeline doesn't work. VM was not edit-warring (if that's even an applicable term here) before Kowkaw showed up. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I checked the timeline, you are right, I warned them after their second revert (the first their revert of Kowkaw). Actually, even after the second revert by Kowkaw, but I probably have not seen that one yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Can you provide the diffs for that edit warring? And I also can't seem to find the warning? Maybe I am looking at the wrong page(s), but I can only see a single revert by GCB at that hoax list, and I can't see any warnings you issued to them before the block? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I am lost now. Are we discussing VM or GCB? These are two different stories as far as I am concerned. All edit warring I know of is on one page, and you have by now also participated there.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what is so difficult in answering my question. Please tell me - and the community - on which page or pages each of the two editors you blocked violated 3RR (or 1RR if applicable), and please link diffs to the warnings you claimed above to have given them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Let us to postpone this until after the Arbcom at least has decided whether they are going to have the full case or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would a simple clarification require a full case? Volunteer Marek 17:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not know, but you are on that page as well, and there are people if not arguing for then at least seriously discussing the full case.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The Arbs aren’t - they seem to be sticking to the issue at hand. All you got there is one or two editors (one of them posting in violation of their IBAN) who are trying to hijack a simple clarification request to agitate for a new case because they think a new case will “rehabilitate” Icewhiz (there is no world in which that would happen. It’s not like the ArbCom will be all like “oh you made death threats against multiple editors and threatened to hurt their families but you still have a couple friends on Wikipedia so we’ll forgive you and let you back”) Volunteer Marek 18:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

We will see. This is not my call anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, why does this need to be postponed? Just answer the question. And while you're at it, please come up with a better explanation for why you never said anything to the other half of the edit-war. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It has to be postponed because if the full case is open (which indeed looks unlikely at the moment) it will be part of my defense, and I have to be very careful about what I am saying. Especially since I still have serious convcentration problems. ANI is not a good place to deal with these issues, but if the ARCA does not result in a full case I will provide the timeline here with the diffs. Concerning your second question - VM made four reverts, their opponent made three at the time of the block, and we have WP:3RR. Note that the two users reverting VM and GCB are not blocked (to be exact, were not blocked last time I checked), though we have a bunch of admins in this very thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You blocked GCB after 1 revert, but you didn't even give Kowkaw a warning after 3. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that's my reading of this case as well. An established editor is blocked for edit warring after a single revert, a suspicious new account is not blocked for reverting three times. No apology or admission of any mistake from the blocking admin after 2-3 days of asking for clarification. What gives? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter I see no reason why such a simple yet crucial question cannot be answered NOW. You blocked them for REASONS which should have been grounded in POLICY, in this case, 3RR. Please tell us those REASONS, explicitly, while referencing the policies mentioned. It is hardly rocket science. Please list the 3RR violating diffs and the warnings you said you given them. We don't need to wait for any ArbCom clarification for such a simple list of diffs to be given. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar: APL missing from DS/Alert documentation?

I was going to help clean up the mess left behind by this dispute, reverting a further 500/30 violation ( although per ProcrastinatingReader's response which I only just saw, perhaps it shouldn't be considered 500/30 resricted?) and leaving DS notices when I noticed that there is no mention of the Antisemitism in Poland case in the list of codes authorized for use. I'm guessing this is just oversight and should be corrected, but given how complicated the template code relating to it is I figured this was better raised for discussion before I go about adding the code. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As a further sidebar to the sidebar, I'm impressed that we resisted the temptation of naming the case ARBAIP, to finish the trifecta of ARBIPA and ARBPIA _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

APL does not authorise a separate DS. Since I believe APL falls entirely within the WP:ARBEE topic area, so I think the DS for that is used. The only special GS (that's still active) authorised by WP:APL is the 500/30. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you. I guess since it's a GS we don't need to notify people (although it seems like a surefire recipe for flummoxing any new editors that want to edit the topic). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's primarily an issue when only part of an article falls under the scope of extended-confirmed restrictions. You can always write a personal note if you come across an editor for whom such an alert seems useful. (The limitation doesn't authorize blocking without warning, so the note would serve to save the editor's time.) isaacl (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Levivich

I really thought we were done here, with the situation more or less resolved. Ymblanter unblocked, then changed the block rationale, then the clarification request was filed. All good. But then for some reason User:Levivich decided to show up and in a space of less than an hour managed to:

• Restart the edit war by reverting two editors on that page: [142] [143] with the second revert including false WP:ASPERSIONS of tag-teaming based on an arbcom case from... 12 years ago.
• Falsely accused me of "perpetuating a hoax" here and here (his rationale being that I made ONE (as in "1", uno, single", ein) minor edit something like ... 12 years ago to that article (it was a minor copy edit of a badly written sentence). This is one edit in space of 12 years. It is one edit out of thousand+ edits to the article. It is one edit out of tens of thousands of edits I made. I didn't perpetuate any freakin' hoax and this is a very serious accusation. Levivich has refused to strike it (he did strike a part of it) [144] (here is the edit in question. it's 100% obvious that it's just a basic copy edit of a bad sentence [145])
• Accused me and another editor of tag teaming because we edit the same topic area and because ... we have been both been harassed by the same user. That user's edits, btw, correlate with Levivich himself just as much if not more than mine and GCB's [146]
• Accused another editor of tag teaming and refused to apologize when asked [147]
• Started ANOTHER edit war on a related article [148] [149]

It's like he came here, saw the drama, and thought "oh this fire is going on, what it needs is a couple gallons of gasoline!". Can someone please tell him to step back (an apology for the false insinuations and attacks would also be appreciated) and leave this topic alone? I think it's pretty clear that his past support for User:Icewhiz is getting in the way of neutral and level headed editing. Volunteer Marek 06:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am the one who asked Levivich to apologize for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions: User_talk:Levivich#Apology_requested_for_your_unfounded_accusation_of_tag_teaming. I honestly thought this was a one-off mistake, and that Levivich will quickly apologize and this will be closed. I am disappointed by him not having done so in his initial reply, but I am holding hope this will be resolved quickly and amiccaby. As for his other edits diffed above, I concur he should now better, they don't appear to be very constructive (since they are de facto restoring edits by indef-banned Icewhiz, and at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#warsaw VM makes a compelling argument that Icewhiz edits were not just wrong (that was my reason for removing them) but were related to his campaign of harassment which led to his indef block. WP:BRV is a cherry on top; really, Levivich, edit warring restoring arguably very problematic edits by indef banned editors and "casting aspersions"; not your best wikiday. I suggest dropping that particular stick quickly before things escalate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Describing Levivich's reverts as "edit warring restoring arguably very problematic edits by indef banned editors" is misleading. As the page history shows, Levivich was reverting to restore the long-standing status quo text, which had been uncontested since Levivich took ownership of the banned user's addition by restoring it in October 2019 with an extra source; the recent edit war started with Marek's removal of that text. Yes, a likely sock got involved in the edit war to restore it, but the removal was clearly contested (just as it was back in late '19 when Levivich objected to its original removal) and the first restoration in the recent revival was, as far as I can tell, by an uninvolved, regular editor of that page. The text is sourced, has been in the long-standing version, and recent attempts to remove it have been contested. If editors want to remove it, they should work to build a talk page consensus. Jr8825 • Talk 17:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, if it was "very problematic", why did the editors who objected to it back in 2019 not continue to pursue the issue in the talk page thread where it was raised at the time, or bring it up at any point between then and now? Returning to the issue several years later and going straight to content removal and not re-opening the discussion that editors were aware of (because they'd previously participated in it) until the sock turned up to fight them ain't cool. Jr8825 • Talk 17:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No it’s not and the information isn't sourced. The "source" is a globally banned user's interview given to Hareetz and then reprinted by a few newspapers. The above-mentioned banned user is also the author of that listing that editors are trying to correct. Please fully familiarize yourself with the issue. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825 What GCB said, but I suggest this discussion is best to be held at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#warsaw - it is not an ANI's issue, IMHO. Well, aside from restoring edits by indef banned editor, which edits were part of his harassment campaign which led to his indef and global ban. This is of some relevance, I guess. But my main concern with with Wikipedia:Casting aspersions (the unfounded accusations of tag teaming), for which no apology has been forthcoming. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

As I told VM shortly before he filed this, I won't be around much today (UTC), but I also don't have much to add beyond what I've already said about this on my talk page, the hoax list talk page, and in my edit summaries. I think everything relevant is in my recent contribs but let me know if there's anything else anyone wants me to address. Levivich 13:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• One thing I'll add is the way to resolve the content dispute about whether a particular entry should be listed is to come to consensus about an inclusion criteria for the list (with an RfC if necessary) and then see if the entries meet the criteria. The criteria I'm operating under is "described by RS as a hoax," which this entry meets (links and quotes on the talk page), but of course consensus might be for a different criteria. Levivich 19:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn’t that we disagree on the merits here. The issue is that you 1) restarted an edit war right as the drama was winding down and more importantly 2) you made an egregious and false accusation that I “perpetuated a hoax” based on… nothing. The latter is a very serious accusation and a personal attack which you refused to apologize for or strike. Volunteer Marek 21:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I said one of your edits in a small way helped to perpetuate the hoax, and I did strike it, which you know, because we discussed that on my talk page. I didn't strike the "minimize the controversy" part but I struck the "perpetuated a hoax" part (diffs and discussion on my talk). Levivich 21:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Um, ok, I guess that’s a slight … improvement. And sure, I’ll drop it, I just don’t ever want to see you accuse other editors of “casting aspersions” or such. Falsely accusing someone of “perpetuating a hoax” is a serious and blockable offense. Volunteer Marek 23:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• To be honest, I think we might want to consider sending Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia to MFD. Its negatives to the project plainly outweigh its extremely limited positives; regardless of warnings, memorializing hoaxes risks encouraging people to create more of them, and by necessity listing anything there requires ascribing intent to editors, which leads to bad blood and WP:ASPERSIONS. And, of course, it has now created massive edit-wars that have spilled out into ANI, which is not worth it for an internal page of such dubious value (and which doesn't clearly fall into any of the acceptable categories in WP:PAGES, for that matter - some leeway is fine if a page has theoretical value and isn't a net negative to the project, but it feels like this page tipped into net negative long ago.) If such a list has actual encyclopedic value, and if appropriate sources exist, we could perhaps have such a list in article-space rather than Wikipedia space, but as far as Wikipedia space goes I'm skeptical that the page's stated purpose of helping us research hoaxes is actually useful today given Wikipedia's scale. --Aquillion (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem is the editors not the page. Levivich 14:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the problem editors who wish to preserve that joke of an entry at the hoax page as some kind of “shrine to Icewhiz” and who appear to think that a new ArbCom case can “rehabilitate” him. It won’t. The guy was banned globally for EXTREMELY good reasons, and there’s no way WMF is ever unbanning him. At some point it’s time to accept reality. Volunteer Marek 16:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • WP is, at least in theory, all about openness and critical thinking. Exposing, recording and learning from our mistakes is part of it. How some community members handle such record is secondary to its immense value to the reader. François Robere (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who notices that while VM takes me to ANI for essentially ABFing, he is ABFing much worse about me? I struck the hoax comments, but he won't strike anything. Is it just me? Levivich 18:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Most of this thread is a BF exercise.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    Worse than falsely accusing someone of “perpetuating” or “minimizing” a hoax? Volunteer Marek 18:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    For example, the way you keep misquoting me, half a dozen times now. Levivich 18:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    You're being "hysterical" and "divisive", it was six strikes, tops. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

User:SinglePorpoiseAccount

Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

• "I can assure you that I will not let myself get bullied into going along with whatever sources you pick"

No bullying occurred, only heated debate, if that.

• "Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that?"

This is gaslighting. My statements were clearly evidenced, and have been backed up at WP:RS/N.

• "This is not how you're supposed to handle feedback you asked for."

My using of evidence to make a point is in fact a good way to handle feedback, and there's nothing wrong with calling out perceived WP:DNTL.

• "You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (WP:IUC) and objective"

I have been abundantly civil and objective, certainly more than SinglePorpoiseAccount has.

Evidence of sock puppetry

• This user has very few edits, the majority if not all of them to 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, hence their name.
• Account is not even two weeks old, but knew right off the bat how to use talk pages, indent comments, and use templates like an old pro.
• They have listed policies and guidelines that take a significant amount of time to master, and have gone off on in-depth discussions regarding them.
• Policies they've mentioned: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:THISORTHAT, WP:EW, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:IUC, WP:DRR/3, WP:RSP and more.

Other problematic behavior

• "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included"

This is blatant misunderstanding of consensus and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

• Falsely claiming AP News has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results".

Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.

• Framing a fringe point of view from an article as substantial evidence. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (SinglePorpoiseAccount)

IMHO, you're dealing with an SPA and a Sock-master. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If I had to guess, SinglePorpoiseAccount is probably one of the IPs who was labeled with the SPA template on the talk page, as he created the account in the middle of that conversation and seems to have picked up the conversation where the IPs left off. If I'm correct, this wouldn't qualify as socking. As for the "accusations of misconduct" and the other problematic behavior, I don't see anything actionable there, at least not yet. The "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source" statement sounds a lot like stonewalling, but I wouldn't say sanctions are justified quite yet. Mlb96 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right that does not qualify as socking, but this user seems far too experienced to have just been an IP editor, and I still suspect they are a sockpuppet. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I gather this concerns 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit and its talk. I'll watch that for a short period. Let me know if I miss any ongoing problems such as undue commentary as that can be resolved with a topic ban as they have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions. You would need to spell out what the problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: It appears likely that things on this page are going to get worse before they get better. BD2412 T 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• On the Maricopa County presidential ballot audit talk page - editors at the beginning of this thread noted how Wikipedia does not engage with hot news items per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, and Wikipedia has no DEADLINE. [150]

Then this wall of text, consisting of Hot news items was posted at 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) by SinglePorpoiseAccount [151].

At 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC), I commented about this wall of text [152].

Essentially this is disruptive behavior after other editors in good standing pointed out what Wikipedia covers. Also, it could be an end around to post this information somewhere on Wikipedia. I just wanted to point this out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I want User:SinglePorpoiseAccount to retract their new defamatory statements here about my honesty, experience, and general effectiveness as an editor. I see this as an egregiously unevidenced personal attack.

They are implying that am I the one who sets their reputation on Wikipedia, saying that I lied by calling out their disruptive behavior and that I am now to blame for other editors noticing their disruptive behavior. It's completely backwards thinking, no logic, no responsibility for their own actions.

• Your lies have had a very real effect on my reputation, nobody is taking my edits seriously anymore and I'm getting attacked with references back to this RS/N.
• "You clearly had no intention of representing the actual issue at hand in an honest way. You've deceived all these Wikipedians with your framing and wasted everyones time. This is not how an experienced Wikipedian should handle source selection"
• don't you dare pretend this settles the dispute we had in the thread.

I never said or even implied that the dispute was settled. More WP:BATTLE behavior.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 02:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(Apologies in advance for the formatting, I couldn't get it to cooperate tonight.) So apparently I've missed a whole discussion here, and some nice little defamatory statements right in the beginning of this. Lets take it from the top:

Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

• I can assure you that I will not let myself get bullied into going along with whatever sources you pick"
  

  No bullying occurred, only heated debate, if that.

This was my response to have been repeatedly called a liar, in an attempt to make me drop the matter in favor of FormalDude. This was before I knew Wikipedia has its own definition of bullying with an associated page, which I understand to be this one [[153]].

• "Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that?"
  

  This is gaslighting. My statements were clearly evidenced, and have been backed up at WP:RS/N.

This was my response to receiving a 3-part list of supposed "lies", but FormalDude did not actually prove they were lies in his response. In fact he did the opposite and proved himself wrong by quoting the statements he said didn't exist. Also note that the RS/N was created by FormalDude. More on this later.

• "You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (WP:IUC) and objective"
  

  I have been abundantly civil and objective, certainly more than SinglePorpoiseAccount has.

This is a laughable mischaracterization of both our behavior. I'll admit things got a little heated, but FormalDude was not being civil. Let me give you an example from the edit before that one:

And there's no Wikipedia policy against accusing editors of lying when they are being deceitful.

Doesn't seem that civil to me, wouldn't you agree? My comment about being civil was there in an attempt to deescalate, which is obvious when you look at how the debate progressed.

Evidence of sock puppetry

• This user has very few edits, the majority if not all of them to 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, hence their name.

Wow, who would've thought a new serious account wouldn't immediately go looking to edit lots of pages. The accusation about my name is blatantly meant as a degrading ad hominem.

• Account is not even two weeks old, but knew right off the bat how to use talk pages, indent comments, and use templates like an old pro.

Well I guess I should take "like a pro" as a compliment, but I really have been just an IPA for about one and a half decade now. Back in the day IPAs were just as good as regular accounts as long as you were just editing technical articles and fixing broken links, so I never bothered. But when it got to the Maricopa audit article I found it was annoying to have a changing IP among others who had a single IP, it wasn't immediately obvious who was me and who was someone else. In one instance there was actually someone who got the same IP as me, obviously connected to the same VPN network and behind their NAT. That was the final drop since if things got heated that would be a dangerous situation.

• They have listed policies and guidelines that take a significant amount of time to master, and have gone off on in-depth discussions regarding them.

Again I think I should take that as a compliment, but my previous statement about being an IPA still applies here.

• Policies they've mentioned: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:THISORTHAT, WP:EW, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:IUC, WP:DRR/3, WP:RSP and more.

I don't remember mentioning "WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS", but I might have just forgotten about it. It's been a busy couple of weeks.

Other problematic behavior

• "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included"
  

  This is blatant misunderstanding of consensus and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

That's odd, someone who hasn't been in a consensus situation on Wikipedia for years, if ever, misunderstanding formal consensus? Well, I'd never...

• Falsely claiming AP News has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results"
  

  Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.

This is not what I said. What I said what this:

AP reporting that the audit is pro-Trump doesn't constitute proof; AP is the officially selected partner for verifying election results. Since the audit is investigating the same election results, AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results, after they have previously stated the results are verified.

See how the context matters? Note the qualifier at the end; "after they have previously stated the results are verified". Reporting errors in your own reporting, when you have a reputation for getting your reporting right because of your stringent pre-publishing quality control, is obviously a conflict of interest. Now, if that's enough to actually stop them from reporting those errors is a different matter, but that's not what we're discussing here.

• Framing a fringe point of view from an article as substantial evidence.

I'm actually a little confused by this one, FormalDude linked to their own edit. I can only assume it refers to a statement I quoted from the AZ Central FormalDude linked, to disprove FormalDude's hypothesis that [AZ Central] reported how professional auditors say It’s not an "audit. It doesn’t meet the formal criteria." is an unchallenged statement. Fairly swiftly disproven, if I do say so myself.

Clearly FormalDude is out to get me for not getting is way in a dispute where he wanted to replace the link to Phoenix New Times about the banning of 9 Twitter accounts, initially offered by an IPA, with a link he had offered from BuzzFeed News. In his request to replace it he asked for comments, and I provided mine outlining I thought it had several grave quality issues making it unsuitable for the Wikipedia article in question. As one might imagine, FormalDude was not happy with that. The key bit of context here is that the Maricopa audit page is often questioned in bias byt IPAs, and with me being a recent former IPA I'm inclined to listen to such feedback. Now, BFN has a bit of a history on run-ins with Republicans, so using a BFN article as what would appear to he the dominant source to a claim on that page, wouldn't look too good on Wikipedia's part. Conspiracy theorists will undoubtedly abuse our use of BFN to feed into their conspiracy theories, so it would be harmful to the reputation of Wikipedia. Therefore I would rather we use the more neutrally worded article from PNT as a source. FormalDude then took the issue to the RS/N, where he triumphantly tried to make me look like I was trying to discredit BFN as a whole.[154] It took me until today to figure out that was what he had done, while I was under the impression that it was a formal process to resolve the source selection dispute. In effect, I was framed due to my unfamiliarity with formal processes (IPAs tend to see very few of them and experience none). That incident has already caused real damage to my reputation.[155]

Anyway, this isn't the proper forum to discuss that, I just provided this as context as to why the dispute began in the first place.

FormalDude can choose to delete his statements if he wants, I don't care. I'd rather have a permanent notice about the incident on his talk page, so that I can point to it when Wikipedians try to use this incident against me. Speaking of which I also note FormalDude has a very relevant previous comment on his talk page about lying.[156] I'd also take this opportunity to remind FormalDude about WP:BITE. If this is the sort of response we are to expect from FormalDude when he suspects (wrongly I might add) a newly registered account is a sockpuppet, he is bound to scare off actual new Wikipedians rather quickly and permanently. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I want to point out that SinglePorpoiseAccount had no trouble formatting this edit among many others.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 05:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• We all know that SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk · contribs) is a returned user and their amusing user name is a promise that they will continue pushing their barrow. However, apart from long-and-windy commentary, I don't see any wikicrimes that would justify sanctioning SPA at this stage. I will say that an indefinite WP:ARBAP2 topic ban does not require a high standard of proof of malfeasance—bombarding discussions might be sufficient. Some suggestions for all participants: (1) You don't need to have the last word. A good way to bring a discussion to a close is to stop commenting. (2) A clear consensus overrules a clear minority so if there is such a consensus, just revert conflicting edits with a polite pointer to the discussion showing the lack of consensus. (3) If the consensus is not crystal clear, an RfC should be held to settle the issue. If invited, I would help guide the drafting and running of such an RfC. (4) There is no deadline and don't fret about replying to every edit or comment right now. (5) I will sanction SinglePorpoiseAccount if anything like this edit is repeated (that is the addition of the 8,614-byte comment above). Such walls-of-text are not helpful and will not be tolerated in an area under discretionary sanctions. If you can't make your point succinctly, don't try to make it at all. That advice applies to all participants. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the advice and thank you for finding the account name amusing. I considered some other pun based names but this is the one that stuck, probably because I was being called a SPA as an IPA which I found a bit amusing in itself.[157] SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for the advice, Johnuniq, it was well put. I just want to make sure I understand correctly: you are saying that SPA's statements here are not personal attacks, right?  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 07:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Of course it's bad but I'm not very useful for CIVIL enforcement (I would quickly indef someone who really breached CIVIL but a bit of venting is to be expected). I would ignore it but keep the diff for use if needed later. Focusing on article content is always best. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• After observing SPA's editing behavior during the short time they have had their account, it seems to me they are not here. This includes the longest running incident of IDHT I have seen, occurring at the RSN [158], [159]. I'll try and post more diffs that are more to the point about that later. I any case, I am guessing they will be NOTHERE going forward. Happy days if they prove me wrong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I can assure you one of my core intentions with this account is to maintain the reputation of neutrality on Wikipedia. Had I not cared about it then I wouldn't even have brought up the PNT vs BFN issue. The incident over at RS/N was most unfortunate but I genuinely believed FormalDude had opened a question about our sourcing issue and sort of lost it a little when I realized that wasn't what he had done. Regardless I felt it necessary to apologize for the noise on RS/N after requesting it to be closed.[160] SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• with this account Please list your previous accounts - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well it's only been IP accounts, so I have no idea what most of the would be. I'm fairly sure I've had 85.24.253.53, 155.4.14.25 and 85.24.253.29, the first two sometime in 2018 and the latter in January of 2019. Looking at the history of the IPAs I can tell I'm sharing the IPs with other Wikipedians. My edits from those IPs are regarding the Contributor Covenant, more specifically discussing the adoption in the Linux kernel with GorillaWarfare. There was also a small run-in with Jorm, but I eventually decided it wasn't worth my time to convince them and left, which is why I still remember those edits. My other edits were too small for me to remember where they were and I have barely participated on talk pages. I'll post here again if I can think of anything else I can use to identify my old IPs. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  I did of course forget to mention 185.5.46.3, 185.5.46.1 and 185.5.46.6, which are the IPs I had just before I registered. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @David Gerard, User:Ryk72 has been the only one defending them at WP:RS/N. see interactions Ryk72 was also indef blocked a while back for being WP:NOTHERE and a sock.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 19:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  That account isn't me, you're embarking on a witch hunt. Which I also just learned there's actually a dedicated article about WP:WITCHHUNT. You've been at it for days trying to attack me over a petty sourcing issue, stop it already. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Ryk72: Just thought I'd let you know you're now involved in this suckpuppet witchhunt. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, this[161] seems remarkably churlish. It's more than a little misrepresentative, and casts doubt on the other statements made here. It would be better struck. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

They may be "just observations"[162], but observations made with no or flimsy evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. None of the comments I have made at RSN are defending any editor. None of the comments so much as discuss any editor. And either diffs should be provided or that observation struck. My comments at RSN align with the community consensus on the general reliability of the discussed source publication. They are, however, among the few comments in that section to discuss the reliability of the specific source article in the context of proposed WP content - which is the ostensible purpose of RSN. It is my standard practice, when posting a new section at a community noticeboard (as I had done in the days immediately preceding), to then make comment in one or two other sections - to "pay it forward". I have no particular interest in the topic discussed, and no history of editing the discussed article. The "editor interaction" evidences nothing other than that two people happened to comment at a community noticeboard. Raising a block from 2013, which was overturned by a then (and current) Arb as an out of process arb enforcement block, blocking admin has since resigned, and which was a significant factor in that admin not being resysopped, is poor - and, in the context of an ANI discussion of another editor, is a clear association fallacy. As an observation, while facilely true, it lacks any relevance. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Their stupendous and querulous timewasting and conspiracy-theorising at WP:RSN strongly suggests that not only are they NOTHERE, they're not competent - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree you your characterization with the exception of competence. My competence is with smaller edits, like adding previously missing explanations or reading the Wikipedia documentation to fix formatting, not with participating in formal conflict resolution on Wikipedia and certainly not consensus discussions. I was mislead by FormalDude into thinking RS/N was the correct place to resolve the source selection dispute we were having, and if you read the key points I posted over there it should be obvious that it was indeed what I thought was happening.. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• User:FormalDude is now falsely accusing me of using IPAs after I registered my account.[163] This WP:WITCHHUNT needs to stop, or I'll be leaving Wikipedia by my own volition. I don't know how their behavior can possibly be considered acceptable for an experienced Wikipedian. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Denying it isn't going to help. There's enough evidence to open a WP:Sockpuppet investigation.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 22:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  How do you even arrive at that conclusion in the first place? Does everyone who doesn't agree with you have to be a sockpuppet account? If so I have genuine concern for any previous accounts you have gotten banned for sockpuppetry. This is ridiculous, stop wasting the time of admins and let them make up their own mind instead of doubling down every time you don't get your way. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Move to ban SinglePorpoiseAccount

For sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, timewasting and either bad faith, incompetence or both, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Well I don't know what to say other than you're being duped by FormalDude. I don't think my inexperience with the formal processes of Wikipedia should be a cause for a ban, but if you're comfortable with having that decision on your conscience then there probably isn't anything I can do besides accept that after about 15 years I'm no longer welcome at Wikipedia. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Due to SPA doubling down on their disruptive edits and attempts at manipulating the narrative of the dispute (both here and at WP:RS/N), I unfortunately do not see any acceptable outcome that is not a ban for SPA.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 20:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CIR and WP:CRUSH. This user has spent walls of text trying to convince us that the AP is not a reliable source, citing their own amateur analysis of an article which they claim evinces bias. This continued after having the facts that this is not how we do things here explained to them multiple times, in detail.

I can understand if a user doesn't grasp how we identify RSes, but a user to whom that process has been explained multiple times, who insists on pursuing their own inept methods, and who does so to support a WP:FRINGE view at such a controversial topic as this doesn't strike me as capable of contributing meaningfully to this project.

Furthermore, while I agree with several others that none of the examples of incivility are actionable on their own or even taken as a whole, they do go a long way towards evincing a WP:BATTLEground mentality.

And that's ignoring the obvious quacking going on here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment our SPA friend is clearly wrong at the WP:RSN thread (and consensus there is clearly against their view), but that isn't cause for a block. I don't see any other cause for a block presented, the diffs at the start of this thread are just needless dramatics over a disagreement. If there aren't better diffs (and Mr. Porpoise doesn't talk themselves into a block) I will be voting in opposition to this proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  They are persistent on spreading falsehoods and purposefully misinterpreting clear Wikipedia policies, as well evidenced by how many editors have had to make repeated explanations about basic guidelines to this user. And there are very valid reasons to suspect sockpuppetry. See:

  1. Their WP:FALSECON attempt here and my response here.
  2. Examples of them doubling down after being polity informed about policy here and here
  3. SPA not disclosing IPs that they used to support their argument (see above). In fact, they actually implied they were not the owner of those IPs to another user (BD2412), saying here that Wikipedia was "ignoring random IP accounts".

  Really I recommend you just look at SPA's authorship of WP:RS/N and Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, and you should see why a block is necessary. I would not have come to this conclusion if SPA had once admitted or taken responsibility for any of their serious actions, but they haven't–and that indicates to me that they will resume their disruptive behavior as soon as this AN/i is closed.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 22:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Is this really the place to double down? I thought the bullet points under this heading were purely for leaving final votes, not discussion? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Discussion that leads to a vote is permitted. Also, procedural arguments are not going to get you anywhere. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Alright, sorry about that then. I just didn't see any discussion under any other vote bullet points, even in other cases, so I didn't want to unintentionally break any more rules. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  How is "I have no issue accepting most Wikipedians think so" possibly problematic? If SinglePorpoiseAccount continues to argue the same points in direct opposition to site policy and their previous statements, they will surely be blocked. If they say they will not do that, that is good. Regarding "IP socking", I really could not care less. If it is necessary the talk pages can be semi-protected. Otherwise, I don't care even if the editor is using multiple IPs (though I assume not). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  I can assure you I never had any intention to break any rules, and I am very sorry for any I may have broken. Even though I have experience with common templates and some Wikipedia policy, I am still inexperienced with the formal processes of Wikipedia. If there are any rules in particular you think I should read up on then I welcome any pointers. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @力: I think you should care that a user was purposefully deceitful about using IP accounts in order to make it seem like more people supported their point of view.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody has proved the user was "deceitful" or using IP accounts in violation of policy. And as I said previously, I don't care even if you could prove it; most everybody discounts the opinions of IP editors already, and as noted there is a clear consensus against them at RSN. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The username "SinglePorpoiseAccount" alone implies an intent to cause disruption, and also heavily implies the user has edited here before and is familiar with what an SPA is. I've been reading into this incident for the past couple of days; personally, I'd suspect sockpuppetry or block/ban evasion. Patient Zero^talk 00:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  FIY, I have already put in a rename request to have it changed to MrPorpoise. At the time I registered I thought the pun would be found funny, but now I see how that's not how it has been viewed at all. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I find it plausible but inconclusive as to whether this editor has previously edited under another name. I think their issues with accepting the reliability of sources stem from a poor choice of a starting point to edit Wikipedia. Articles on politically charged topics with substantial bodies of misinformation circulating in conspiratorial sources are rarely a good place to learn the ropes of Wikipedia. I would suggest a general U.S. politics topic ban for a minimum of six months, subject thereafter to review of the editor's contributions to determine whether they have demonstrated productive participation and understanding of the rules. I expect that if they are in fact only interested in pressing a viewpoint in a contentious area, then they will be uninterested in editing substantially and for an extended period of time in other parts of the encyclopedia. However, I would not specifically oppose a site ban, deferring to the consensus of editors that there is a problem here requiring some action for resolution. BD2412 T 00:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I would support this more targeted proposal first I also share the impression that the evidence is suggestive of socking, but far too short of the threshold of anything substantial enough to ban on such a presumption. It does happen from time to time that an editor contributes extensively enough as an IP to be more than passingly versed on our ecosystem of policy touchstones to be able to site them more or less intelligibly. That behaviour, standing alone, cannot be used as a basis to presume a block evasion or other forbidden use of multiple accounts. I will grant that the claim of 15 years of residency here as an IP, combined some some of the more particular behaviours begins to strain AGF considerably, but, in that respect, if there is a feeling that WP:DUCK has been met here, the appropriate forum to request a checkuser is WP:SPI rather than just a ban on the basis of presumption.

On the other hand, there are some non-trivial concerns with WP:CIR and possibly WP:NOTHERE at work in this case. I do see an editor in Porpoise who is at least nominally making efforts at good faith discussion (assuming we are not being gamed by a sock, which, again, we should pursue the standard sock busting methodologies as that is concerned). I also think their confusion about the mandate of RSN and how that little aspect of the dispute played out looks genuine to me, and lends credence to the possibility that they really are just some sort of advanced amateur here who took their time in doing a deep dive on consensus building process but have been very slowly accumulating knowledge on general bits of policy over a long slow engagement with Wikipedia. I'm not saying that I am 100% convinced this couldn't be a very subtle snowjob regarding their past experience here, but I have enough doubt that I'm inclined to treat this editor with the default level of WP:ROPE I'd advise extending to any other editor who landed here because of strident positions in a contentious area. Therefor I am more amenable to this intermediary sanction to pull them out of the area where their conduct has raised concerns. Mind you, I actually wouldn't even support the TBAN on the present evidence, but Porpoise is asking us to take a lot on faith when there are some real questions as to the possibility of abuse of multiple accounts, and since the alternative would seem to be a full ban, this intermediary approach seems to be a better outcome for them. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Darknipples

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

---

Just going to drop this here for other comment: Special:Diff/1037004023 —valereee (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Really lovely stuff. —valereee (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Better and better. —valereee (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And another accusation at my user talk. —valereee (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not a good look from Darknipples. Unless you're into that kinda thing I guess . (Sorry had to make the joke.) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Hey, I get it. Dark nipples are something 14-yo boys fantasize about. Not a thing wrong with that. :D But maybe here on WP, we leave that at home. —valereee (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That's inexcusable. I've given them a couple weeks to grow up. If anyone feels I'm too harsh or not harsh enough, feel free to modify. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is sad. Way back in 2014, this editor was willing to discuss what they described as "my silly user name. What can I say? I have a relatively sophomoric sense of humor" and I expressed some concerns at that time and so did other people, but I felt at the time (and still feel) that it is not an overt violation of the username policy. This editor has been productive on and off ever since, and was a major contributor to a Good article about an important topic. This editor is not a troll. 78.26 wrote on their talk page, "Valereee was acting in an administrative capacity with concerns regarding your user name." I have problems with this claim. Valereee (who I usually respect) was quite confrontational about their seven year old username, did not say that it is a username violation, and did not offer advice about changing it. I find Valereee's tone quite troubling in this interaction, and not the tone expected of an administrator. This is a real mess, and nobody involved looks good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I didn't say I was acting in an administrative capacity. I was acting in the capacity of another editor who was offended by this username because it sexualizes women. It's offensive, and I brought it up to that user because I thought maybe, after 7 years, they might be ready to say, "Oh. I guess what looked like snicker-snicker was hilarious when I was 14 now looks -- at 22 or whatever -- like I'm a jerk." —valereee (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I attributed the "administrative capacity" to 78.26, who has apologized below. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I did not say I was acting in an administrative capacity. I was acting in the capacity of any other editor. I did not approach that user as an administrator in any way. How is I see you've been queried about your user name before. What I can say is that it tells me I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me, and doesn't care whether I know they don't care. I'm sure it just probably seemed like a hoot 8 years ago, maybe when you were less mature. Now it's just kind of ugly. problematic? It's completely oriented on how the user name makes me, a female editor on Wikipedia, feel. It approaches women sexually. I am not easily offended, and I'm quite comfortable with sex and sexuality. The user name Darknipples is uncool, and I said that. As a colleague. —valereee (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Those two responses were somehow reverted/restored somewhere in the process and ended up duplicating each other.)

Oh, and by the way? They refactored that into: "I'm ugly. —valereee (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)"

—valereee (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Ugh, why was a user name with "nipples" in it ever allowed? Overt or not, it a fricking encyclopedia where women actually edit. </soapbox> Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Men have nipples as well. It could well be completely self-referential in which case who are we to argue? Nipple is a perfectly legitimate word. However I have no idea if it's intended that way, or if there is indeed another intent behind it. Canterbury Tail talk 01:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The user-in-question's name is (IMHO) an intentional provocation. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

((ec x 3) Welp, If I've judged the situation incorrectly, it won't be the first time I've been wrong. The user name is... certainly questionable. The personal attack is troubling. What gets me is that Darknipples made the personal attack, and then made turned it around that accusation against Valereee, making it seem that their own personal attack was the other party's [164]. I was flat-out wrong about the "administrative capacity" comment, for which I apologize to all. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I find the diffs provided by Valeree very concerning. As a non-admin, I would expect a short term block against DN. If this behavior had been levied against me, I would be demanding it. BTW, was this revert appropriate? @Acroterion:, I feel that Valeree should be able to express her opinion of her role in this scenario, even if she is incorrect and she has a duty to comport herself with utmost civility even in non-admin interactions. (I believe Jimbo has said something like this in the past) I still think her right to defend her intended tone is more important.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah I was a bit confused by that rollback. PackMecEng (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I bet an hour of fixing typos it was a misclick. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Darn, missed my chance. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah looks like, I've done it myself many times. PackMecEng (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  That was a misclick. Feel free to restore. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'll hold you to that promise. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  No worries, I figured it was a misclick, just recreated. Now we've got two of them lol. —valereee (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is getting out of hand. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Let's just leave it be before we edit-conflict ourselves to more confusion. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Valereee, by saying that it tells me I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me you're imputing intentions, and by saying that it's just kind of ugly you are being disparaging. Is there any kind of previous context here? If not, is there something about "dark nipples" that I'm missing? Is it specifically used for women in some cultural context that I'm unaware of (and that could well be, since I'm not a native speaker)? Otherwise, it seems to me that they could just as well refer to a man's nipples? I mean, if the term is indeed used in contexts that sexualize women, it is indeed offensive, and I would entirely understand your reaction in that case. Of course, that the way Darknipples reacted crosses the line in at least two ways (PA, and then turning it around, per 78.26 above) does not need any discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  There's a fetishization of dark nipples among certain cultures. Darknipples has been told multiple times that this is an issue. The fact they continue to use that name, even recognizing it's "sophomoric"...well, it's really hard not to think they simply don't care that it's a problem. —valereee (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Just a note, "sophomoric" seems to be their reason for keeping the username, as they implied they enjoy that type of humor. Seems like a good point of debate might be whether or not that type of humor is allowed for usernames. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  The "sophomoric" comment was made seven years ago, in the context of some self-reflection about the username. Repeating that as if it is something current seems a bit unfair. As I said back then, I think the username is "risque" but not an overt violation of the username policy. I was not an administrator back then, but now, if I saw such a username, I would take a look at the user's contributions to see if they are a troll fixated on breasts and cleavage and bralessness and the like. This is not the case with this editor. I had a number of conversations with them years ago, and came away with the impression that they are a caring person who wants to improve the encyclopedia, who made the "mistake", as it were, of selecting a username that drew negative attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, as well as sexualizing user names. Sexualization of women is an extremely serious real-world problem, and so sexualizing user names are bound to make some people uncomfortable, regardless of the intentions of the user who chose it. Still, I think that less focus on those intentions would have been helpful here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I completely agree, but I would point out that most all people have nipples regardless of their gender. Obviously that's not your point though as males experience much less (if any) sexualization of their nipples. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I should have said "and so sexualizing user names are bound to be understood by some people as targeted at women, thus needlessly making some people uncomfortable, regardless of the intentions of the user who chose them". In an ideal (or in a future) world, sexualizing user names would be no problem, but in the current one there are just too many bad associations that we could really do without here. By the way, the sexualization of women negatively affects all of us, and it are not only women who may take offense. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well said, I agree. IMO the username is pretty blatantly sexist. 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I can assure you that men's nipples are indeed sexualized. Mlb96 (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, and people who are affected by that may also unnecessarily be made to feel uncomfortable. But we also need to take account of the fact that it happens more to women, which is relevant because we have a gender gap to fight here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I support the block issued here by 78.26–I don't think it's excessive. This type of blatant refactoring of others' comments (from an editor who's been around as long as DN has) is unacceptable. Talk pages are not Tumblr circa 2012. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Valereee's comment was "I see you've been queried about your user name before. What I can say is that it tells me I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me, and doesn't care whether I know they don't care. I'm sure it just probably seemed like a hoot 8 years ago, maybe when you were less mature. Now it's just kind of ugly." (diff). That comment is out of line when addressed to an account created seven years ago and a two-week block for a single outburst in reply is ridiculous, particularly given that it is the first block for this user. I would prefer a simpler user name policy backed by a low-overhead way to have the community say whether a user should change their name. Until that happens, it should come as no surprise that an established editor reacts badly to being told that they don't care, and that it seemed like a hoot, and they were less mature, and that it's ugly. We don't know why people choose their usernames but a motivation for some is a desire to normalize certain terminology so that others don't freak out about it in other circumstances. That may or may not apply, and it may or may not be helpful, but it is not necessary to assume bad faith. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Are there any editors who identify as female and think this username is acceptable? Levivich 04:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Totally inappropriate diffs, appropriate block. DN has accepted the block on their talk page. The only business left over is the username issue. If there's consideration of the username early in someone's wikicareer and it's deemed acceptable at the time, it seems a bit unfair to require them to change it several years later, after they're made thousands of edits attached to that name. That said, I'll add myself to the list of people who do find it inappropriate, and I think that DN should change it even if I'm not quite behind requiring that change at this stage. For maximum consistency from the old name, may I suggest Desknickels, Dukenoodles, Darkneedles, or Dunknobles? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  User:Darknoodles seems usurpable. Levivich 04:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Knipple is Yiddish for a stash of money. [165]; dar is obviously a dialectal form of a German definite article. Dar knipples. The obvious choice. EEng 04:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, several older women I knew as a younger man called that a "foxy pocket". I guess Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source, is it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Foxy Pocket, eh? I really screwed the pooch choosing my username. Huge missed opportunity there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Cullen328, how is it that you knew these older women as a younger man? Were they in transvestite disguise? EEng 15:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Good block. Calling someone's username ugly is not a personal attack, it is a criticism of a username. A valid one in my opinion. Calling someone ugly is a personal attack. Changing someone's post so it looks like they called themselves ugly in their own voice goes well beyond the line into actionable territory. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• I also find the username distasteful, but it needs to be reiterated that it is inappropriate for an admin to post such a needlessly confrontational message. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• DP has been unblocked by Bishonen as "time served". I am assuming they spoke to the blocking administrator off-wiki because I don't see it on wiki. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bishonen's comment includes a diff showing that the blocking admin said (above): "If anyone feels I'm too harsh or not harsh enough, feel free to modify." Further consultation would not be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• When searching for “darknipples” (on bing.com), the first link is “Images of Dark Nipples”, with the comment “these images contain adult content”. One click later, you get a quiz: which image should be chosen by this supposedly childish user to illustrate the personal page of User: Darknipples? Pldx1 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• There is nothing out of line about confronting someone whose username is frankly sexualized in a way that makes me uncomfortable. Imagine if you were in a professional workplace and you stood watching as a man introduced himself to a mixed group as “Hi, I’m Darknipples.” That is almost literally what this is, and I’m actually kind of shocked that anyone could think this is acceptable or that it’s inappropriate for one of the woman present to approach him later and tell him his chosen nickname was offensive and explain why. Or maybe I shouldn’t be shocked. I’ve had the experience of standing up to leave a meeting full of men and had one of them say with a smile, “We hate to see you leave but we love to watch you go,” and realized the rest of those men had all looked at my face to see if I’d react and now were going to watch me turn around and walk to the door. I have no opinion on the block or the unblock. All I wanted was for this user to give a think to their username, and instead they refactored my post in a juvenile way. —valereee (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, if in the first situation you describe it were one man introducing himself as Darknipples in a room where there were as many or more women as there were men, without any structural difference in rang or power between the men and women, I wouldn't necessarily see that as more inappropriate than most other nicknames around here. It would be different in a situation similar to the second one that you describe, with a room full of men who are obviously gleeful about approaching one woman in a sexualizing way. I understand that Wikipedia may sometimes feel that way, and that it generally more resembles the second than the first situation, and that is why I do think that the nickname is ultimately inappropriate here. However, User:Darknipples hasn't done or said the things that you've experienced, and they probably don't deserve to be treated as if they did. Basically, a boatload more of AGF was in order here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I do think it is a bit much that an editor complains that a name offends her only to be met with being told she is ugly, then when she sought out a defense for this she was called various things from aggressive to puritanical. If this was a work environment it would be a hostile one. There is a lot of victim blaming in this thread and a lot of making light of something that should have been taken more seriously. All I have to say on this matter. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The offending editor was almost immediately blocked and more than a few editors quickly expressed their agreement with valeree's concerns with the username. This thread was taken quite seriously from the get-go, and it is not 'making light' of it to suggest that the OP should have communicated their concerns in a less adversarial manner. Being offended doesn't give one carte blanche to be rude. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

      @Lepricavark, I'm open to the idea that I could have approached it with a milder "Hey, your username is pretty offensive, would you consider changing it?" But that approach had been tried, multiple times, by multiple users, so I decided I'd explain.

      I probably could have made the explanation itself milder, but really, why does the person in the room who is the target of the joke have to be the one who objects to the joke, and do it calmly and in the most measured-possible tone when she's actually quite exasperated to have discovered that this has been going on for seven years? If someone in the room who wasn't the target of the joke had been the one to object, they probably could have gone in without even being annoyed.

      I didn't actually intend to be confrontational. I was trying to explain as best I could why the username was a problem for me and likely other women who might not feel they could speak up. I questioned myself about that, actually...how could this username have been used for seven years? Was it really that offensive? It's just nipples, for gosh sakes...but, no. It's a user name, which every editor they interact with has to deal with, and it's a sexual joke they have to experience every time. —valereee (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • The problem with your analogy is that you initiated the interaction with DN. He didn't come looking for you so that he could offend you. Instead, you approached him with a series of bad faith assumptions. While there's obviously no excuse for his wildly inappropriate response (and nobody is making excuses, btw), I genuinely don't understand how you could have expected your first message to be well-received. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    This is a collaborative space where you literally leave your name wherever you go. There need not be formal introductions for one to see darknipple's name on their watchlist, or on a talk page.

    With regards to the name, maybe this juvenile humor was acceptable when it first showed up, but clearly it isn't anymore. The user's reaction was extremely inappropriate, specially for an experienced editor. It was a good block. Isabelle ^🔔 12:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think I agree most with HighInBC's comment directly above. Other than that, it doesn't help that WP:DISRUPTNAME is awfully broad/ambiguous for a policy. Can't WP:RFC/NAME be used for this purpose? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• If you ever again find yourself so hopelessly bored that you begin to think that pestering established contributors about their somewhat questionable usernames (or signatures, that's another one that we get to see here on the regular) would be a good idea, consider instead heading to Wikipedia:Maintenance#Maintenance_and_collaboration_resources. There's plenty of actually productive stuff to do around here. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There's no call for that either. I realize that logical argumentation is probably wasted on a logged-out/banned user looking to stir the pot for kicks, but there's nothing that says Valeree can't express her legitimate objections to a questionable username. I take issue with how she did it, but not with the fact that she did it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• I see the username as immature and distasteful, and one that I'd expect to see created by a vandal or troll. However, my personal thoughts regarding the username are irrelevant. In the end, I do not see it as a blatant violation of Wikipedia's username policy where administrative action is justified because of the username alone. Could it be seen as borderline? Debatable? Yes, but not blatant.

Valereee, I don't see the act of talking to a user or confronting a user about their username being distasteful and asking them to change it as inappropriate. However, I would've used much different words when doing so. The statement, "I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me, and doesn't care whether I know they don't care" will certainly be translated as casting aspersions on one's character and will likely result in a negative or heated resposne. It wasn't necessary or productive.

What Darknipples did in response was absolutely out of line, and violated Wikipedia's policies on civility and the use of personal attacks. I'll also add that it was quite an immature thing for Darknipples to do. Simply ignoring the message and not responding to it would've been better than what he/she did. I also think that the block in return was appropriate given the situation, though I wouldn't have made it for two weeks. I find that setting a block of only a few hours (24 hours maximum) will usually get the point across sufficiently in these situations.

In conclusion, the username isn't what I consider productive in relation to building an encyclopedia, but it isn't blatant enough for administrative action to be justified. Valereee's act of talking to Darknipples about his/her username was appropriate, but I believe that the words she chose to use were not. Darknipples responded to the message in an unacceptable manner, and I believe that the block, with time served, is enough. I think it's time that we move on now. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Didn't ArbCom oppose the use of microblocks (eg here), due to WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE issues? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah, then will you please talk to them about it in a way that won't offend them and will encourage them to make a change? Because really when a woman tells you that something is making her and possibly other women uncomfortable in the workplace, you should listen to her. Even if you think she's being shrill. :D —valereee (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My take? Refactoring the comments of others is wrong, but so was Valeree's comment. There is nothing inherently sexual, or female, about nipples. Most of us have approximately two of them, and they come in a wide variety of colours and shades, like eyes, ears, and legs. DuncanHill (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone really believe this user created this name innocently and wasn't A) trying to get attention and B) trying to skirt the rules? I am not saying they intentionally wanted to offend valeree directly because they didn't seek her out. They joined seven or eight years ago at the age of 14 with a user name that definitely implies something sexual based on a simple google search. Did they do this with intent? Does that really matter? I don't think so. What matters is what image Wikipedia wants to present. Would this name be allowed in a professional setting? Regardless of whether they intended the name to be offensive when they joined they have been here for years now which means they have aged and they should know there will continue to be objections to this user name. We can discuss valeree's assumptions in her initial contact with the user but, ultimately, their response to her comments only leads one to believe valeree's assumptions are correct and this user lacks empathy for their fellow editors and how their actions can affect them. I am not agreeing that making said assumptions was the path that should have been taken but until you have been through sexual harassment, being objectified or worse, assaulted, you really can't understand the position that women face on a daily basis. As editors here, we are expected to act with a certain level of professionalism. It's not always required and sometimes we see examples of where we don't always follow that plan but it is still expected. This user name is immature at best and, at worst, under the right circumstances could be seen as sexual harrassment and I can absolutely understand why valeree acted the way she did. Should he be forced to change his name? No. Should he change his name? If he wants to be taken serious I would recommend it. --ARoseWolf 13:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: Don't you bloody dare assume that people commenting here in a way you don't agree with haven't been sexually harassed or assaulted. You want offensive? You just did it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom}}

• So just for the record, every single editor who thinks this username is OK is male, do I have that right? And all the women who opined think it's offensive. Am I wrong? Did I miss anyone? If I'm right, do my fellow dude-colleagues maybe want to rethink things a bit hmm? Like maybe defer to female editors on this one, hmm? Wikipedia is known as a toxic environment totally unfriendly to women, why might that be? 🤔 Here's an idea, men: next time this comes up, don't share your opinion at all. Nobody really cares if a man thinks something is or is not misogynistic. Levivich 13:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm surprised to see this comment after a female admin (me) unblocked Darknipples. I didn't comment in the thread, admittedly, but feel free to defer to me anyway, Levivich. As for the username, I've been aware of it for some time, and disliked it, but it never occurred to me to bother the editor about it, and I did not think it deserved Valereee's wording out of the blue after seven years of constructive editing. Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC).

• (non-admin comment) It's the sort of username which I, as a male editor, consider both in bad taste and a timewaster; even if it doesn't violate WP:USERNAME. Such names encourage me to check their recent contributions, in case I've just found someone who lives under a bridge and milks billygoats. Narky Blert (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm male & I don't think the username is OK & as I mentioned (above), it's likely intentionally provocative. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom}}

• a female admin (me) unblocked Darknipples. Therefore, everyone can be proud of themselves: Dark is proud of his nipple fixation, Bishonen is proud of her unblocking, while Valereee can be proud of trying to enforce some inclusiveness. And so all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Pldx1 (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

• And thank goodness for the male editors who can decide when this conversation has run its course. "Sometimes in order for there to be space for oppressed people to claim, someone else has to step back." But on Wikipedia, we go a different route. Levivich 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructive Reverts (and revert explanation) by User:Praxidicae

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

---

I believe that the user Praxidicae has been doing a number of unconstructive reversions to the page Alila Hotels and Resorts. I've left thorough explanations about my edits on both the edit summaries and article talk page only for them to be labelled as "Spam" or "nah this is still spammy nonsense.". I have also left a message on the user's talk page for clarifications for the edit page only for it to be ignored and unanswered.

I feel like these reversions ignores WP:AFG; I strongly believe that I updated the page with new content and backed it with neutral statements and claims with 18 new secondary sources (compared to 8 sources previously, 4 secondary, 4 primary), and I can't understand how this is considered spammy nonsense.

Differences between revisions

--Okadiputera (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with any of the hospitality companies who are related to the articles you are editing? Is this your first account? ST47 (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi ST47, I am not affiliated with any of the hospitality (or any) companies related to any articles I have edited/contributed to. This is not my first account, this account is a replacement for an older account that I have retired.Okadiputera (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Okadiputera, I noticed that you are using Business Wire as a reference in your highly promotional edits. Are you aware that Business Wire is a commercial website in the business of distributing press releases, and is therefore the opposite of a reliable, independent source? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, I apologise and should not bunched that in as a secondary source, you are correct that it is not independent. However, that leaves 17 other sources that I believe are secondary sources. Having said that, I would like to kindly disagree that my edit were highly promotional. Many of the claims I have written merely presents the company's history. I could understand a couple sentences that may seem promotional, and would be happy to have it edited/removed to further neutrality. Furthermore, as apparent in the last two paragraphs of that section, I also included information of the company's property closures, which I don't suppose are favourable coverage by any means. By any means, I feel like a complete reversion of my edits is unwarranted, and I believe the essay WP:BABY best reflects my opinion on the situation. Regards Okadiputera (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Could the BW article be used to establish the company's notability? No. But that's not what it was used for. Instead, Business Wire ([166]) was used to source the following factual statement: "In January 2021, the brand announced an expansion with a second and third hotel in the United States; this was realised with openings in Encinitas and Napa Valley in March 2021." BW is a perfectly acceptable source for such a statement since it clearly says "the brand announced" thus leaving us no room for misinterpretation. We allow press releases and such under WP:ABOUTSELF. You could even use the company's official website for a sentence like that IMO. Whether including that tidbit in the article was a good idea or not is a separate matter, but the source that was used was perfectly adequate. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae's description of this version of the article as "spammy nonsense"[167] was both inaccurate and inappropriate. I don't see anything there that would be objectionable to the point of requiring the deletion of 90% of the article. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

While I take no position on the terminology "spammy nonsense," I will say that the current revision of the article strikes me as more encyclopedic and less promotional brochure, which I find appropriate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Prax's edits and description appear both accurate and appropriate to me. That read like a promotional "history" of the brand rather than an encyclopedia entry of a hotel company. Grandpallama (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Okadiputera ANI is an environment to report “incidents” an archetypal example of a “non incident” being reported at ANI would be this very entry. When you pinged Praxidicae what you ought to have done was to be patient, and if they weren’t responding what you should have done was to exhibit more patience, instead of bringing this here. There are other venues for content disputes, if you say you aren’t affiliated with the hotel in any form or manner, then what’s the rush for? Furthermore how are you permanently retired in your previous account and are still editing actively under this current incarnation? That’s contradictory to say the least. If you aren’t reading the room, let me be the first to tell you that nothing is coming out of this “report” as it is no incident. As for the terminologies used I too take Dumuzid's stance. Celestina007 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by 82.132.243.40

Here. I'm 100% certain it is also block evasion – Iqacquire (talk · contribs) was blocked for making legal threats after this and several similar edits were reverted, and the IP posted their legal threat after this was reverted. --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 31h, no sure anything else is needed here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Ymblanter. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

William Selig

@Cwmhiraeth: and @Berrely: trashed all of my William Selig work-in-progress with a admin delete citing WP:OVERQUOTING (redlink)
I want to get a copy of my last revision for User:0mtwb9gd5wx/William Selig 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@0mtwb9gd5wx, thanks for noting the redlink, I meant to link WP:COPYQUOTE, but I forgot the shortcut :). I really don't think ANI was the appropriate place for this. I removed some of the content (not all) you added to the William Selig article because it copied from a copyrighted source that wasn't released under a free license (see Wikipedia:Copying from other websites). I then requested a revision deletion of the copyrighted content, which was performed by Cwmhiraeth. While I appreciate this may have been frustrating, please note ANI is a last resort. You should've at least started a discussion on the article talk or my talk asking why the content was removed. As for getting back the content before the revision deletion, you can maybe ask Cwmhiraeth to email you it, however the copyrighted material cannot be put back onwiki. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you two deleted, quotes are fair use 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed everything you copied from https://www.victorian-cinema.net/selig, which you mostly added in the diff with the edit summary <ref name="victorian-cinema-Selig"/> == Multiscope and Film Company == Magic (illusion) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the text was copied and pasted from this page; you can plainly see the copyright declaration at the foot of the source page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't the place to say this but... that article has some strange stuff going on. Why are there like twenty-plus citations supporting a single sentence? Why are there a bunch of external links to some PDF copies of patents? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment) Those patents (now no longer in the article) look like what are in known the trade as improvement patents - incremental advances over recent developments. They can be useful ammunition if there's a patent war going on (see Motion Picture Patents Company), when every side files every patent application they can think of, in the hope of protecting what they're doing (or might do) - or that something sticks and puts a crimp in their opponents' activities. Been there, done that. (It's too late to investigate now, but I'd wager dollars to doughnuts (1910s money) that at least some of those inventions were made by Selig's employees, not him.)

Notwithstanding that paragraph of WP:OR, lists of granted patents can be appropriate in articles - in their own section. Who would have heard of Hedy Lamarr otherwise?

That'll be $250 please (reduced rate for an introductory consultation). Narky Blert (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violation by a WP:COI account at Ikea and Talk:IKEA

Coming here because I'm at a loss as to how else to approach this. Ignoring notices, warnings and policy, TomElliott113 (talk · contribs) keeps adding content copied from the organization at which he's employed. Doesn't appear to appreciate WP:COI or WP:COPYRIGHT--the impetus is only to publish his findings here. Requesting rev/deletion of several postings to the article talk page, and possible limited sanctions on the user. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin, uninvolved): I've had a look, and the user claims to have approval from the copyright owner for the text copied to the talk page. Given that the user identifies as an employee of the quoted organisation and asked for a conflict of interest check, I find this claim to be at the very least credible. Revdel might be warranted since no proof of copyright was provided, but I don't see this requiring any sanctions. The user now seems to be trying to go through the proper channels, after being told that this was the procedure, and seems to be trying to be cooperative. Despite the copyright violations, which need to be treated correctly, I think a reminder to assume good faith, and to not bite the newcomers is warranted in this case. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

One is markedly less inclined to assume good faith when the new user is a WP:SPA whose evident purpose is to publish the findings of the company at which they're employed. So much so, they've copied and pasted the same content to Wikipedia three times, suggesting that they're willing to be cooperative to a very narrow point, that point being that we publish their content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies about uploading the same copy multiple times - I can see how that can come across as insistent but I thought it was relevant as a starting point for the conversation and I was hoping we could collaborate on improving it so it reaches Wikipedia's standards. Truth be told I'm not overly confident in my written English abilities, and there are a number of specific technical terms I didn't want to mangle - which have been my main motivations to lean on the language as published and reviewed by our libel lawyers.

As for publishing our findings - well yes, I suppose that is my intention - but as a legitimate addition to the page and certainly not as a means of promoting ourselves. To the extent that I've made reference to ourselves, well, we are the source and while other independent news outlets have reported our findings, the 20-page fully referenced report is our work and hosted on our site - so it seemed to me we are the ones to credit.

The initial copy I posted was a genuine effort to use impartially describe our findings in my own words, but with the more technical bits lifted from the report. I didn't realise how seriously this breached Wikipedia's copyright rules, I thought it was fair use being flagged in case - not a warning. I have had another attempt at rewriting the copy but will be the first to admit I've just shifted the sentences around so it's not verbatim the same as on our site. Please treat this copy as a continuation of a conversation and not as a demand for publication - ideally if one of you gifted wikipedia elves could pick it up and make the changes to carry it across the line that would be perfect, but otherwise feedback is appreciated and I'm willing to have another go. Sorry again for any trouble or offence TomElliott113 (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Multiple issues remain, including whether your organization can be used as a WP:RELIABLE source; of course, WP:COI is of concern, as well. Then, there's the continued attempt to include off-topic content about a Ukrainian oligarch. Your claim not to be proficient with the language is belied by the above. But the most immediate issue is again, copyright. The content you've added--now for the fourth time overall--to the article talk page may be reconfigured, but still appears to lift sentences verbatim from your website. At the very least, it's WP:PARAPHRASE, and I'll request that it be rev/deleted. Again. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• My take is that WP:UNDUE is also an issue. The way to go here may be to add a few sentences to the article, using journalistic sources you provided at the article talk page, TomElliott113. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Gonzafer001 bizarre behavior

Gonzafer001 (talk · contribs) may be a case of WP:CIR. Today he tagged an article I created for speedy deletion [168], without a valid rationale from the criteria. That doesn't seem like a huge problem by itself, but then I looked at his talk page, which is littered with PROD and XfD notices for articles he created on non-notable subjects, as well as notices about managing a COI and a sockpuppetry notice. They've also been repeatedly warned about vandalism and copyright violations. He also has repeatedly recreated an article about the Bellingham Metro News, of which he openly says on his userpage he is the founder and editor in chief. This all goes back to 2016. Their other edits today include stuff like this [169] and [170] as well as spamming a bunch of articles with the "sources" tag when it's not appropriate. In 2019 Doug Weller warned him for incorrectly tagging things for speedy deletion. [171] This editor clearly doesn't understand how sourcing works here, nor has any clue about what should be tagged for speedy deletion or how to correctly do it and it's wasting time and effort of people who know how to do this stuff. ♟♙ (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• As per above, doing NPP today, I have come across a number of erratic tags placed on new articles. My sense is that this editor has insufficient background / understanding of policy to be tagging articles like so. A stop needs to be put to this activity, making unnecessary work for other editors. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• I made a judgement call on your article. The older conversations on my talk page are irrelevant, feel free to remove the notice and I will move on, dispute the articles for deletion, I’ve been tagging pages that need more sources. Dispute it.. --Gonzafer001 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Your judgement is consistently wrong and it's making a lot of extra work for people who have to clean up after your mess. You don't know when or how to correctly use speedy deletion tags and your pattern of past and current misbehavior and competence issues are not irrelevant. This needs to end, because you are causing damage to the project, either through an enforced ban from you using deletion tags or an indefinite block. ♟♙ (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• So me nominating your page for deletion encouraged you to retaliate against me buy surfing through my past contributions and also nominating them for deletion. Isn’t that considered a (WP:COI). Engaging in something with someone whom you have filled a reports against?^{(User_talk:Gonzafer001)} I think we are both in the wrong here and we can use this moment in time to learn instead of censor each other, don’t you agree: instead of trying to censor me, could you reach me to become a better Wikipedian?User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gonzafer001: That is not a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Although other editors have introduced you to the COI guideline in the past you do not seem to have actually read it. As there seems to be a long-term competence issue it's appropriate to discuss it here. Citobun (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

*sorry User: Citobun. I will try to work on improving as an editor.. you gotta start somewhere though. You don’t start off as an expert, it takes time. Some people on here have been here for 17 years.. this is my 5th year. User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you posting from the future? (Check the timestamps.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Gonzafer001 was asked to comply with WP:PAID in July 2019 by User:SounderBruce and still hasn't complied. He and his sock have repeatedly been promoting him. They've been referred to WP:NOTABILITY several times yet continue to create articles lacking evidence of notability. And today's tagging was clearly faulty, I have no idea why he thought it was appropriate. He says he wants to become a better Wikipedian but he doesn't seem to have looked at the links he's been given which would have helped him achieve that goal. Maybe a ban from tagging and direct article creation might force them into learning our policies and guidelines, plus of course if they don't declare their paid status they will have to be blocked, but hopefully that won't happen. The ban should also apply to anything associated to them directly, eg the Bellingham Metro News. Doug Weller talk

• Gonzafer001, after five years you're no longer considered "new". After one or possibly two years you may be able to successfully make this excuse, but not after five and certainly not after people have repeatedly pointed you to the appropriate guidelines and policies. Which, as Doug and Citobun say you've shown no evidence of having read and understood. Or you just don't want to follow them. I submitted the draft you created about your company (after it was repeatedly deleted and for which you were warned about WP:COI) because at this point it's spam. You can't write articles here about your own company. From your responses above, I can't tell if you have competence issues or are simply refusing to hear. Either explanation is very disruptive. EDIT: Even after this discussion you are begging another editor to help you get the article about your non-notable local newspaper from draft to article [172] - ♟♙ (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I was very much tempted to indef per NOT HERE/CIR especially with EnPassant's link above, but I have left a final warning and will not hesitate to block Gonzafer001 myself. Star Mississippi 17:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Gonzafer001 is indefinitely banned from 1) New Page Patrol, 2) Tagging ANY content on Wikipedia for speedy deletion and 3) Creating new articles on any subject with which he is connected.

• Support - As proposer. ♟♙ (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Editor is wasting everyone's time, at best, with this behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support While I have not analyzed this in depth, this appears to be a moderate remedy for a clear-cut problem. Clarity should be provided that they can appeal it and when. Even better if the ban could auto expire in two years, appealable in 1 year.North8000 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose something must be done, but this franken-proposal isn't it. Gonzafer doesn't have New Page Patrol permissions, so there's no reason for a ban on that. I strongly encourage Gonzafer to install Twinkle for any future speedy-deletion (on account of it saving time and making it easier for others to review edits), but that's not the type of thing ANI is in the habit of requiring. (also I'm not sure if Twinkle works when doing mobile editing - perhaps the WMF can work on fixing that.) Regarding COI creations - there may be a need for this editor to use AFC. I'm not opposed to requiring Gonzafer to use AFC for article creations where a COI is involved. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

BLP issues at Fer Niño

Mass attack that merits page protection, including personal attacks amid the editing carnage. Perhaps some rev/deletion is in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've been personally dealing with those vandalisms. Requested temporary protection at WP:RPP, as attacker(s) used multiple IP addresses and accounts. I think it should be enough. I've not spotted revisions which would qualify to be WP:REVDEL-ed. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for trying to keep things in line. I hate to post specific links to such edits, but one such example [173] is close to our line, if not over it. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • And everything added by this brilliant account [174]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• So many revdel's, so little sport. I think like 50 of em. Eep! El_C 02:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• El_C, thank you. I think the quality of discourse has gotten so coarse that many of us grow numb to this kind of relentless defamation. I don't. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Anytime. It's, indeed, disconcerting that in the span of less than 24 hours, there were over 50 edits that had to be revdel'd. Where are the cyber police when you need em? Oh wait! El_C 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I gather the gentleman did something very unsporting, and was paying the price the Wikipedia way. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ref, where are you? Oh, right, got run over by Cow Man. That's about par for the course... El_C 03:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Extreme BLP vio

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

---

Greetings all. Could I get an admin review of this edit? Given the issues here, it appears to merit more consequences than the usual vandal, with a possible revdel also. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Revision-deleted as purely disruptive material (WP:RD3) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Requesting block on IP due to promotion

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

---

User:2409:4064:B14:F38F:0:0:2794:A0A5. This IP continues to advertise or promote (after 4th warning).----Rdp060707|talk 05:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistion addition of unsourced contents by an IP

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

---

This IP address kept adding unsourced contents to many BLPs. This IP was warned for 4 times in this month, especially for adding unsourced edits. Also according to their talk page, they also’ve added biased contents into articles. In addition to that, they’ve disrupted Wikipedia for 4 years since 2017. They were warned by other editors but they still continued to disregard editors’ warning and continued disrupting the encyclopedia. And the final thing you’ll notice if you look at this IP’s talk page, they used to be block from editing twice because of their disruption on Wikipedia. Definitelyduke255 (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Their editing history this month suggests an out-and-out troll. Any diff would do, but the three edits to Sigmund Freud are typical. Narky Blert (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editing (Multiple Unsourced Alteration of Financial Data) by User:SimpleIndian

I believe I'm seeing violations of the WP:Disruptive editing policy by User:Simpleindian (Special:Contributions/Simpleindian). Since I'm unfamiliar with the reporting procedure, I'll be brief and let an expert look into it. Almost daily, the user has been posting unsourced alterations of financial numbers such as profit margins and market capitalizations for such major players as Tata, Jio, Apple, Nike, and the Bombay Stock Exchange. Given the tendency for such activity to interfere with financial markets, I thought it best to report this at once. Thank you for looking into this. 67.0.25.87 (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Self-promotion by User:Nidmjaynagar

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

---

User:Nidmjaynagar is doing self-promotion on his userpage. Peter Ormond 💬 09:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Immed block on 190.122.185.170 please

Can we get an immediate block on 190.122.185.170 (talk · contribs) based on this transphobic edit summary, not to mention their two other edits. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Already revdel'd; good; they should probably be blocked as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Tried to block, says already blocked. Don't see a block. I think this happens when there is a global block> HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If there was a global lock, or range lock, it should show up in a little red bar on the top of contribs, it does not.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain, it's an auto-block. Ran into a similar case recently, where I was able to unblock and the re-block the IP. Not being able to explicitly block an auto-blocked IP may be a recently introduced "feature". Favonian (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I was indeed able to unblock and subsequently to reblock for 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• That requires an e-mail to WP:EMERGENCY by my reading - I'll do so now. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The same person has been running around doing the same thing on Favonian's and Bonadea's talkpages. They apparently think we all sit in one place and conspire. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • ... and here we are. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Favonian, Acroterion, it's probably that Indian editor who's been harassing Bonadea for years. Keep forgetting their name. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

        @Drmies:, Prob.ly Rajeshbm (talk · contribs · logs · block log)? Mathglot (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Oh, I see; and a whole sock army... Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

        @Drmies: you are thinking of Nsmutte (talk · contribs · logs · block log) – no, I'm sure it isn't him. He has made some rather vile attacks over the years, but his writing style is... unique, shall we say? Idiosyncratic, anyway, and this one doesn't write like Nsmutte at all. Rajeshbm is another user from India, but the issue with that sockmaster was more to do with UPE and promotion of various celebrities, if I remember correctly. --bonadea contributions talk 22:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just fyi and for the archival record, this is almost certainly the same user as Correct grammar is important (talk · contribs · logs · block log), responsible for this transphobic attack with violent threats; already indef'ed by Drmies. Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding these aliases for the record:

• Trapkemp (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Bedsidle (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Dozesorval (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

87.55.132.96

First, you have the user making unexplained disruptive edits [175][176]. Next, they abuse another IP to evade scrutiny. [177]. Could anyone do something about this? Thanks. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, I'm confused - those three diffs were all the same IP, have you got the right ones? Can you also explain what is disruptive there? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Fixed the third diff. It looks like there's a bug with "cur."  Self-trout They're removing lots of content without explaining, that's what's wrong. --Firestar464 (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, so, from a quick skim, it looks like they are removing the 'untitled project' sections in that table, alongside making a bunch of other changes, is that correct? Maybe just revert any changes you disagree with and leave a talk page message, not sure there's any admin intervention needed yet. Looks like the article gets a lot of attention from a bunch of different IPs, it's not clear that there's any attempt to evade scrutiny. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, IDK what I was thinking.  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough Firestar464 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

IP 172.101.221.42

172.101.221.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Purely disruptive since May 2020 - seems to be a static IP almost all edits over the last 15 months are consistently of similar themes: either an obvious POV [178], [179], [180], [181], or random BLP attacks [182], [183]. Lots of warnings on talk page. Can they be indeffed as it’s static? DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, I agree that this looks static. Indef blocks for IPs aren't really a thing, but since they've been doing this intermittently for so long, I've blocked for a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Outlander07 Nair vandal + ip gaming at 2409:4073:188:816:BC56:BC50:3785:213B series

Outlander07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Outlander07 has been blocked in Wikimedia commons for ip vandalism and harassment[184].

Every sock reported here is closed without investigation (and even alleged the reporters as vandals !) as he is able to misunderstand admins and check users as he is a neutral editor. if you check his edits he behaves to be neutral but is a Nair vandal who attacks thiyya,ezhava and Christians, maybe at sometimes he do a Nair vandal revert to maintain as a neutral in front of admins. He is vandalizing many articles, from these ip series, from maybe from another device.[185][186]

see his loggedout vandalisms : [187] [188] [189] [190] [191]

See also his initial all edits, all on Nair caste [[192]]

clearly Shows here he is a Nair ethnic vandal who is here to promote and protect Nair pages [193]. He said there : Who the hell are you?You are trying to defame the same Nair community by providing false statements even though you are from some other community than kshatriya,Nair,Ambalavasi.I know this is your cheap ajenda.Keep it in mind that the history cannot be disrupted by some idiot like you.

I request a thorough investigation on this without any prejudice or privilege given to the user Outlander07, and block this Nair caste vandal who is disrupting Wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.194.252 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This IP has been making repeated and unsupported claims that Outlander07 is a sockpuppet for days, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Outlander07 for reference. --Jack Frost (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked. I probably could make this an ARBIPA block if I felt like it, but the message here alone is blockworthy on its own. The lack of self-awareness in the rant above is depressingly typical for India POV warriors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Passerby note as the clerk who processed these cases: This is an exact copy-paste of the edit request the IP made at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Outlander07 (not sure why they made it an edit request since the page isn't even semi'd yet, though it probably should be). The IPs comments are also near-identical to those made by a registered user on commons. Not sure where this vendetta is coming from, but it's one that has been ongoing for a while, and the recent reports are all unconvincing. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've left a notice on Outlander07's Commons talkpage, as is predictable the admins over there are completely missing the forest for the trees. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

IP Block Evasion (again)

The IP User:1.46.19.111 is by single-purpose editing behavior a block evasion, again, of rangeblock User:2001:FB1:10:0:0:0:0:0 ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Topic-ban violation by user 'BunnyyHop'?

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

---

In March 2021, the user 'BunnyyHop'[194] was given a 6-month topic-ban for "Marxism/Leninism, broadly construed". Earlier today (five months or so after the ban onset), the editor made these edits to the page for Cuba[195][196]. The edits are made in an article for a country with a Marxist-Lenist regime and ideology, and the specific content that the editor is removing is explicitly about the Marxist-Leninist regime of Cuba (the editor is removing peer-reviewed academic descriptions of the Cuban regime). The editor explicitly mentions 'Soviet and Communist Studies' on the talk page, which shows that the editor is aware that the content in question pertains to Marxism-Leninism. Several questions:

1. This surely falls under the topic ban?
2. In fact, isn't it precisely what the user was topic-banned for in the first place: whitewashing Marxism-Leninism as an ideology and whitewashing Marxist-Leninist regimes?
3. Doesn't this (coupled with the fact that the editor has barely edited anything else during the topic ban duration) suggest that the user has not learned any lessons from the topic ban and intends to immediately resume the tendentious single-purpose editing on Marxism-Leninism when the ban expires? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this falls under the topic ban. No opinion about 2, but the topic ban must be extended (technically, made indefinite with an appeal not earlier than 6 months).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of their topic ban. Based on their comment on their talk page, the editor seems to think that August is six months after March, instead of September. I think the topic ban should be indefinite, appealable after six months, and that the specific date should be mentioned when the topic ban is extended. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, Snooganssnoogans, there you go: if Ymblanter and Cullen328 agree it is, then that's what it is! Drmies (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? I think we often have similar opinions. I would easily name a dozen of users I would be surprised to agree with, but certainly not Cullen328.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because I disagreed with Ymblanter on one matter yesterday does not mean that we disagree all the time. I think Ymblanter does good work almost all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Y'all are reading way too much into this. I had no idea you were disagreeing on something. The point is that if two experienced admins think it's a violation, it's likely a violation. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I overlooked the amount of time the topic ban was; I thought it had ended two days ago. It wouldn't make sense for me to wait five out of six months and violate that the topic ban. Nonetheless, I think you're stretching it a little bit, but that's something the community can clarify. If I was topic banned from liberalism/conservatism, editing the page of such countries, even if it related to repression, would definitely be difficult to declare if it is under the topic ban. This only qualifies if you suppose that the more broad guiding ideology of a country is directly related to that country or the content in question. If one believes that ideology is related, it would be within the topic ban; if not, it would be outside. There's no consensus in RS about this.

Nonetheless, I am astonished at how you're describing my comment here. I didn't "remove peer-reviewed academic descriptions". I reverted content to the status quo (before your addition) because I found many problems when I was checking the sources, and I pointed those problems out on the talk page, as per your diff, so we could discuss them. I'm not going to describe them, but they can be found here. If you believe that my verification of sources is "tendentious", I don't know why you say concretely where the tendentiousness is, instead of assuming that as true based on my topic ban. I made an effort to have much better collaborative behavior now that I thought my topic-ban was over, by being concise and not having any WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:WINNING behavior. I tried to create a healthy discussion by concretely pointing out problems I found in sources and what different reliable sources say, but it's a bit disheartening to think that my topic ban might influence the will of other users to try to build consensus, or that I'm on a mission to "whitewash" stuff when I simply want to abide the neutrality rules in an environment prone to systemic bias, which made in the past my approach towards editing less cooperative; something I now understand clearly and really want to avoid, because it's truly not the best way to neutrality. It's going to be grievous for me if my neglectful time counting results in a larger topic ban. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic ban says "broadly construed" and you are trying to construe it narrowly. Your comment at Talk: Cuba is an unambiguous violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Because there are just so many Marxist-Leninist -leaning editors running amok, we should definitely come down extra hard here. Terrorism cancelled! El_C 18:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Also, I'd submit that bunny-hopping is super-cheap. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but when I have my trusty TMP, no jumpity-jumpity needed. El_C 19:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• At this point, everyone just ignores my antics. I respect that. El_C 19:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. It's up to the banned user, and only the banned user, to respect the stated bounds of the topic ban, which was "all articles related to Marxism/Leninism". It's not "difficult to declare" at all: Cuba is a Marxist-Leninist country -> you edited the article about it -> you violated the ban. Someone said this better than me a long time ago, but when you're topic-banned, you don't go around testing the edges of the ban to see if anyone notices or what you can get away with, you steer well clear of the topic, such that if anyone says you violated it, we'd call them a fool. I think you made an honest mistake here with respect to the timeline of the ban, I'm an accountant and I count months wrong all the time, but from your own words you knew that this would have been a violation of your ban if it were still in effect, which in fact it was.

I suggest as resolution that the ban be made indefinite, and appealable at any time after the original duration (roughly one month from now). In other words, in order to avoid confusion, your ban will not expire, you will need to convince the community that it is no longer necessary. Does that seem reasonable? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this might work.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

When Drmies decided my sentence, he said he didn't want to make it resemble capital punishment, and gave me a second chance, in a time when disputes were long and ugly. I'm very grateful for your understanding and reasonable proposal. I'm going to use the appeal in a month because I'm ready to start anew, with the same cooperative spirit I had when I first commented on the country's talk page :) --BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• My concern is that BunnyyHop made a handful of edits between 5 and 10 march immediately following their TBAN, and was then inactive until their return - on the day they believed their TBAN finished - to jump right back into editing in the area from which they were TBAN'd. They certainly haven't done much to suggest they have any interest in contributing to any other area of the encyclopedia except the area from which they were banned. They note (above) that the original TBAN included an appeal option after 3 months because it wasn't designed to function as "capital punishment" (eg. killing their contribution generally just because of topic-specific sanctions). But their own decision to take a wiki-break effectively turned a TBAN into a BLOCK. That's their choice, but a single-minded focus like that is likely to make a ban appeal very challenging and so the above solution (while well-meaning) may have unintended consequences. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is apparently an accidental TBAN violation, but it is certainly a violation. When a topic-ban is imposed, the intention is that the time away from the topic area will lead the editor to improve their skill at constructively editing the project, or to contribute in other areas. However, sometimes, what happens is simply delaying the disruption. Some editors simply stay away from the project until the ban expires, and that is not encouraged. In light of the technical violation and the evidence suggesting that BunnyyHop is both eager to return to the behavior that led to the initial topic ban and uninterested in other contributions, I think a new six-month topic ban (this time explicitly stating the end date) is appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111 and 力: I only took a break from enwiki, but I continued to contribute to other parts of Wikipedia. I just didn't find anything outside of the contemporary history (or politics) topics that interested me and that was needing work here, so I decided to take a break on good terms. It just so happened that I opened that specific page, saw such a paragraph, and when I checked the sources things didn't add up. I checked the dates, thought my topic ban had ended two days earlier and decided to leave a comment with the problems I found. Why are you're saying I'm eager to return to the behavior that led to the initial topic ban? Was my comment on the talk page bad? How would I approach such a situation, then? I thought I made had made a good comment to be as collaborative and productive as possible. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 01:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The ban discussion claims you push a personal and positive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and your source-less opposition to article content making the fairly non-controversial claim that There are elections in Cuba but they are not democratic suggests that will continue. I may yet be talked into supporting an indef TBAN with appeal after 6 months. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@力: My opposition was not sourceless. I linked this article on a peer-reviewed paper that states otherwise. But that was later on; in the beginning, I checked both these articles, whose references are unpaged, and I couldn't find anything that verified such phrase. I stated this right at the beginning, that "I have tried my best to check where in those references their respective phrases are located". Unfortunately, Snooganssnoogans' reply did not contain any quotation or page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• You're absolutely free to have a wiki-break, and on your own terms. My concern is about the singular focus; so singular a focus - in fact - that a fairly narrowly worded (in my view) TBAN left you with nothing of interest to edit elsewhere. Such that for you, a TBAN was effectively a BLOCK. You've acknowledged the edits on your return were in breach of your TBAN (I think) but made them because you mistakenly believed the ban had expired. Cool, that happens, and I don't care about the substance of the edits for that reason. But if you come to the community in a month and claim you've learned from your mistakes and will contribute productively elsewhere (rather than focusing on the area and editing that got your banned in the first place), no amount of good faith will make up for the fact that all evidence is to the contrary. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: Thank you. But can you be more clear on what you mean at the end? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

We're done talking here, I think. You can discuss this elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

IP range 88.232.168.0/21 and 85.107.107.46/21 continued disruptive editing of football articles

I believe all edits under the two IP ranges is the same editor as they do the same disruptive edits on football related articles. The edits will either increase the size of the non-free logo in the infobox, will edit the dates on the establishment or dissolvement of the club, or just remove information about the club. You can see this has been an ongoing thing using a range of IP numbers, so was hoping there maybe a way to topic ban from football articles or some other way to discourage the IP from these edits? — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked both ranges. Looking at the contributions, all of their edits going back a few months have been reverted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Mspaintist

Edit war at Artem Dolgopyat. User:Mspaintist (also anonymously from his two IPs 109.65.11.107 and 79.178.19.156, which make accompanying edits on the user's other contributions elsewhere) repeatedly removes information on Dolgopyat's ethnic background along with numerous supportive sources in which his parents in separate interviews clearly describe their backgrounds with citations provided in bold text (e.g. [197]). Attempts to discuss this issue with the user ([198], [199]) led nowhere, with further removals of text and sources. The situation has seemingly reached a dead end and requires administrative intervention. --Simulacrum (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Good luck with it--on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)